Consumer-Law Records

TCPA robocall claims against debt-relief lead generators often survive MTD, unlike Howard v. RNC (narrow prerecorded-voice reading) or Hulce v. Zipongo (solicitation definition issue), but class cert battles like In re Humana show consent-proof hurdles ahead.

Privacy/wiretap claims split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth survived pixel/tracking disclosure theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Walker v. Fidelity were dismissed on similar facts. Outcome likely hinges on whether Experian's alleged tracking/disclosure conduct is pled with same specificity as Rand.

Comparable rulings split: Rand v. Eyemart and Gunnar Optiks let pixel/tracking claims survive on factual grounds, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance dismissed similar Meta Pixel/biometric claims. Outcome likely turns on whether health-related data disclosure is pled with specificity.

None of the comparables directly involve false-advertising claims against a consumer-products manufacturer, but Dougherty v. Bojangles shows courts often let some consumer-protection theories survive MTD while trimming others, and Cetorelli v. Duell confirms deceptive-practices claims can yield real damages awards when proven. The mismatch of comparables (data breach, arbitration, wage-hour) limits reliable inference here.

Privacy/wiretap claims split roughly evenly across comparables: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth survived pixel/confidentiality theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on similar data-sharing theories. GM's connected-car data practices resemble the surviving health-data-pixel cases more than the dismissed ones.

Comparable rulings split: Holmes affirmed ADA violations and Burton revived equitable ADA-adjacent claims, but Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal where plaintiff couldn't prove modification effectiveness and Billesdon reversed ADA failure-to-accommodate claims for insufficient evidence. S.D. Fla. is a high-volume ADA Title III forum where barrier-removal claims often survive early motions but recovery is capped (injunctive relief + fees, no damages).

Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA Title III claims fail if plaintiff can't prove proposed modifications are effective, while Holmes v. Bax affirms ADA violations can survive summary judgment; outcomes split heavily on fact-specific remediation proof.

ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax and Price v. Diab show ADA claims and injunctive relief can survive/affirm. Small property manager defendants rarely match large-chain settlement benchmarks (Home Depot, Container Store).

TCPA theory split in comparables: Howard, Perrong, and Hulce affirmed dismissals on narrow statutory grounds, while League of Women Voters v. Kramer survived an MTD on nearly identical robocall claims. K&P Hospitality's small/ambiguous corporate footprint suggests limited scale versus the large settlements in our sample.

Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA failure-to-accommodate claims can be dismissed when plaintiff can't prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive summary judgment; outcomes are fact-specific and split in comparables.

Pixel/tracking-tech privacy claims show split outcomes: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth allowed similar health-data disclosure claims to survive, while Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel claims. Outcome is highly fact-dependent on consent language and data specificity.

Wiretap/pixel-type claims show a real split: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Gunnar Optiks survived on tracking-tech theories, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on similar privacy-disclosure claims. Outcome is highly fact-dependent on consent and data type involved.

Comparable Meta Pixel/tracking wiretap claims split: Rand v. Eyemart survived reversal at 5th Cir., Clements v. Gunnar Optiks survived at 7th Cir., but Santoro v. Tower Health was dismissed at 3rd Cir. and Integris Health claims were unclear/remanded. Outcome heavily depends on specificity of interception/disclosure allegations against Equifax.

ADA accessibility outcomes are split: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA claims while Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal where plaintiff failed to prove reasonable modification was effective. BOKER is a small specialty retailer, so case likely hinges on standing/mootness issues seen in Burton v. Chase Point.

ADA accessibility outcomes are split: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA liability and Price v. Diab upheld fee-shifting after default. Outcome likely turns on specificity of alleged barriers and defendant's response posture.

Circuit split signals: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir., controlling in S.D.N.Y.) affirmed dismissal of ADA claims where plaintiff failed to show proposed fix was effective, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations elsewhere, showing outcome hinges on specificity of accessibility barrier pled.

ADA web-accessibility suits in S.D.N.Y. often survive initial motions, but Lowell v. Lyft shows dismissal is likely if plaintiff can't prove the requested modification is effective. No ADA-specific prior record for this defendant adds uncertainty.

Minano v. DLJ shows courts readily dismiss FCRA furnisher claims lacking private right of action or factual specificity, while Askins confirms bare statutory disclosure violations can survive standing challenges. TransUnion's history of $40M-$60M jury verdicts and multiple multi-million settlements shows real exposure once claims clear the pleading stage.