W.D. Mich. · No. 1:26-cv-03175
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan State Universitysource ↗ filed by Miller Law Firm (Rochester) · No. 1:26-cv-03175 · Civil Miscellaneous Case · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth allowed similar disclosure-based claims to survive, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on exemption/pleading grounds. MSU's wiretap theory likely hinges on whether tracking tech (e.g., Meta Pixel-style) claims are pled with specific disclosure facts. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) — survived because plaintiffs specifically pled disclosure of identifiable data via tracking pixel without consent, a likely parallel to MSU's facts. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead actionable disclosure/consent facts, as in Tower Health and Nuance where exemptions or pleading deficiencies proved fatal. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$1.75M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; MSU-specific facts, data type, and class scope unknown, so estimates are highly uncertain. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | W.D. Mich. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |