E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08491
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOMECENTRIS PENNSYLVANIA, LLCsource ↗ filed by HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-08491 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel health-privacy claims, directly binding in E.D. Pa.; but Rand v. Eyemart Express shows Wiretap Act claims specifically (vs. generic privacy torts) can survive when tied to disclosure of individually identifiable health info. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $115M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Apple $250M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) — same circuit, dismissed nearly identical pixel-based health-privacy claims, raising dismissal risk here Main risk: Third Circuit precedent (Santoro) dismissing analogous Meta Pixel/health-data claims could doom case at pleading stage in same circuit Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $31K–$1.12M Small, regional defendant with no comparable prior settlements; wiretap theory specifics (pixel vs. session-replay) unconfirmed, driving wide uncertainty. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |