← Daily briefing · What cases settle for →
A searchable database of consumer-protection filings, settlements, and opinions — built by Public Vector's agents and growing every day. Filter by type, practice area, or defendant; sort settlements by value.
4,093 records · $109.16B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / comps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLCsource ↗ filed by Garibian Law Offices PC · Judge John Michael Gallagher · No. 5:26-cv-08061 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M ▾Equifax faces recurring FCRA suits (Bradberry $2.2M settlement, multiple pending filings), but Minano v. DLJ shows courts readily dismiss FCRA counts lacking private right of action or factual specificity, while Askins shows bare statutory disclosure violations can still confer standing. Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M median $7.86M · n=10 Equifax $100M · Equifax Informatio $30M · Equifax $30M Per member (realized): ~$250 median · $25–$500 (n=5) Comparable verdict: TransUnion $60M · TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital - dismissed several FCRA counts for no private right of action/insufficient pleading, a likely template for Equifax's motion to dismiss. Main risk: Dismissal of core FCRA theories for insufficient factual specificity or lack of private right of action, as in Minano v. DLJ. This defendant: Equifax shows repeat FCRA litigation pattern (Bradberry settlement + 5 pending filings), suggesting systemic reporting-accuracy disputes rather than one-off error. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $4K–$2M Single-case filing with unclear class status; EV highly sensitive to whether suit remains individual or becomes certified class action. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-21 | $2.40M–$100M comparable settlements |
| P.I.M. BRANDS USA, INC.source ↗ No. 1:26-cv-03678 · 28:1441 Petition for Removal · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | D.D.C. | 2026-10-21 | |
| Sela Realty Investmentssource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-10-21 | ||
| Washington Gastroenterologysource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-10-21 | ||
| The Criterion Collectionsource ↗ common fund · Pro rata share /member · No. 1:24-cv-07345-VEC | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Not specified | 2026-10-21 | $4.50M |
| Naterasource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Other | Northern District of California | 2026-10-21 | $8.25M |
| JL Darling, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09211 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-10-21 | |
| Digital Divide Media, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09212 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-10-21 | |
| Chimienti & Associatessource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-10-21 | ||
| Dartmouthsource ↗ claims-made | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-10-21 | ||
| Svetness, Corp.source ↗ filed by Sconzo Law Office, P.A. · No. 8:26-cv-03089 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾ADA Title III barrier suits often survive dismissal if specific barriers are pled, similar to Holmes v. Bax affirming ADA claims, but Lowell v. Lyft shows courts dismiss when plaintiff fails to prove modification feasibility. Small single-location defendant limits exposure. Comparable settlements $65K–$530K median $200K · n=3 Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K · Home Depot U.S.A., $65K Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — shows ADA claims can fail if plaintiff doesn't carry burden on reasonableness/effectiveness of requested fix. Main risk: Dismissal or mootness if defendant remediates barrier quickly (cf. Burton v. Chase Point mootness dispute), cutting off injunctive relief and fee claim. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3K–$12K Single small-defendant ADA case; no class, no prior record, and settlement comps are from much larger entities, limiting precision. · grounded in 8 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-10-21 | $65K–$530K comparable settlements |
| Etairos Healthsource ↗ claims-made | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-10-21 | ||
| ZK Technologysource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | 2026-10-21 | $635K | |
| Playstudios USsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-10-21 | $3M | |
| Indebted USA, Inc.source ↗ filed by Consumer Justice Law Firm PLC · Judge Sheria Akins Clarke · No. 8:26-cv-03207 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements –$7.40M ▾FCRA furnisher claims often dismissed for insufficient pleading (Minano v. DLJ Mortgage), yet disclosure-based FCRA claims can survive (Askins v. CRST). TransUnion has a track record including a $40M jury verdict, showing real exposure if claims survive. Comparable settlements –$7.40M median $2.23M · n=8 Trader Joe's $7.40M · Xactus $2.40M · Amazon.com Inc. an $2.25M Per member (realized): ~$301 median · $102–$500 (n=2) Comparable verdict: TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital - shows FCRA furnisher claims frequently dismissed absent specific factual pleading of inaccuracy/dispute handling. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead specific FCRA violation elements, as in Minano where 3 of 6 counts were dismissed with prejudice. This defendant: TransUnion faces repeat FCRA filings (Pinney, Ferguson) and a prior $40M jury verdict, indicating recurring litigation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$25M Small sample of rulings/settlements; actual class size and outcome highly fact-dependent on specific FCRA claim pled. · grounded in 10 rulings, 8 settlements, 1 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-10-21 | –$7.40M comparable settlements |
| Newrez LLCsource ↗ Judge Thomas Patrick Barber · No. 8:26-cv-03185 · Real Estate Settlement Procedure (RESPA) Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-10-20 | |
| SYNCHRONY BANKsource ↗ filed by PHILA, PA 19142 · Judge Joshua David Wolson · No. 2:26-cv-08041 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M ▾Minano v. DLJ shows FCRA furnisher claims frequently dismissed for lack of private right of action or insufficient pleading, a direct risk for Synchrony as a furnisher. Askins v. CRST shows bare statutory violations can still confer standing, keeping some claims alive. Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M median $7.86M · n=10 Equifax $100M · Equifax $30M · Equifax Informatio $30M Per member (realized): ~$250 median · $25–$500 (n=5) Comparable verdict: TransUnion $60M · TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Minano v. Dlj Mortgage Capital — most FCRA furnisher-liability counts dismissed, mirroring likely exposure for Synchrony as a data furnisher/creditor. Main risk: Dismissal of core FCRA furnisher claims (no private right of action under certain subsections), as in Minano v. Dlj Mortgage Capital Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1M–$40M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; no Synchrony-specific prior rulings; class size and per-member figures are rough proxies pending complaint specifics. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-20 | $2.40M–$100M comparable settlements |
| Vitality Extracts, LLCsource ↗ No. 6:26-cv-02452 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Texans for Dan Patricksource ↗ Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt · No. 4:26-cv-09230 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Tex. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Dream Cuisine Pizza Incsource ↗ No. 8:26-cv-03074 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Rent-A-Center, Inc.source ↗ No. 4:26-cv-01547 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Tex. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Your Grant Advisor LLCsource ↗ No. 2:26-cv-12255 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Lead Indicator LLCsource ↗ No. 3:26-cv-12204 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | N.D. Cal. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Eyebuydirect, Incsource ↗ Judge Marilyn L. Huff · No. 3:26-cv-05978 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Cal. | 2026-10-20 | |
| B.C.T. IMPORTS, INC.source ↗ No. 2:26-cv-13666 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D.N.J. | 2026-10-20 | |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.source ↗ filed by The Law Office of Anthony Paul Diehl · Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks · No. 3:26-cv-05994 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M ▾TCPA robocall claims show split outcomes: Howard v. RNC and Hulce v. Zipongo were dismissed on technical definitional grounds, while League of Women Voters v. Kramer survived MTD on similar robocall theory. Chase's scale creates large exposure but courts are increasingly strict on 'artificial/prerecorded voice' and 'solicitation' definitions. Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M median $36.20M · n=10 Caribbean Cruise L $76M · Dish Network $61M · US Coachways $49.90M Per member (realized): ~$20 median · $10–$500 (n=4) Comparable verdict: Dish Network, LLC $61M · ccAdvertising and Dr $32.42M Key precedent: Howard v. RNC (9th Cir.) - binding circuit precedent narrowing TCPA's prerecorded-voice trigger could gut claims if Chase's calls/texts don't start with such voice. Main risk: Dismissal under Howard v. RNC's narrow reading of 'prerecorded voice' trigger, or Hulce-style finding that calls aren't 'telephone solicitations' This defendant: Chase faces recurring consumer-protection suits (FCRA, privacy, ADA) suggesting systemic compliance gaps but no prior TCPA-specific pattern shown Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $800K–$67.50M Small, mixed comparable set; actual Chase calling practices and consent records unknown; wide range reflects uncertainty in survival and class scope · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Cal. | 2026-10-20 | $29.50M–$76M comparable settlements |
| ParkingMD, Inc.source ↗ filed by deLeeuw Law LLC · Judge Unassigned Judge · No. 1:26-cv-01360 · 18:2511 Wiretapping · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Doe v. Bayhealth survived a near-identical healthcare-confidentiality/tracking-tech claim in Delaware state court, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance show courts readily dismiss health-privacy pixel/biometric claims absent clear statutory fit. ParkingMD's handicap-permit health data processing sits ambiguously between these outcomes. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr.: Delaware court allowed breach-of-confidentiality claim for healthcare-adjacent entity using tracking tech, directly relevant venue and fact pattern. Main risk: Dismissal on grounds ParkingMD isn't a true healthcare provider or lacks statutory duty, as in Santoro and Cisneros exemption rulings. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $80K–$5.25M Tiny comparable sample, no prior ParkingMD litigation history, and class size is a rough inference from sparse web signals. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Del. | 2026-10-20 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Schwabe North America, Incorporatedsource ↗ filed by Horowitz Law, Pllc · Judge Matthew F. Kennelly · No. 1:26-cv-12888 · 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | N.D. Ill. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Oregon Health & Science Universitysource ↗ Judge Karin Immergut · No. 3:26-cv-02301 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | D. Or. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Broad Street Global Management, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-27409 · 15:0078 Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Fla. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Eversource Energy Service Companysource ↗ filed by Milberg, PLLC · Judge Richard Gaylore Stearns · No. 1:26-cv-14752 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap suits split sharply: Doe v. Bayhealth and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks survived early motions, while Tower Health (Meta Pixel) and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on exemption/standing grounds. Eversource's case likely turns on whether tracking-technology or data-sharing claims meet interception/consent thresholds similar to these health-data and biometric precedents. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because provider owed a confidentiality duty; Eversource's utility-customer relationship may face analogous but weaker duty arguments. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead contemporaneous interception or lack of individualized harm, as in Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $25M–$95M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; no prior Eversource litigation data; true class size and theory specifics (wiretap vs. tracking pixel) unconfirmed. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Mass. | 2026-10-20 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| AMERICAN HERITAGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLCsource ↗ No. 2:26-cv-08043 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Echler USA Inc.source ↗ Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins · No. 1:26-cv-01073 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Ohio | 2026-10-20 | |
| Ubiquiti, Inc.source ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09208 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Quinnsource ↗ filed by Mavacy, PLLC · Judge Stephen J. Murphy III · No. 2:26-cv-14012 · 28:1983 Civil Rights · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mich. | 2026-10-20 | |
| The Federal Savings Banksource ↗ Judge Edmond E-Min Chang · No. 1:26-cv-12874 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | N.D. Ill. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Amtraksource ↗ Judge Myong J. Joun · No. 1:26-cv-14743 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Mass. | 2026-10-20 | |
| Fangsource ↗ Judge Susan C Rodriguez · No. 3:26-cv-00881 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | W.D.N.C. | 2026-10-20 | |
| AMERICAN LANDMARK MANAGEMENT LLCsource ↗ filed by HALPERIN PETERSEN & MIKKILINENI LLP · No. 1:26-cv-01229 · 28:1332 Diversity · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Wiretap/tracking claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived early dismissal while Tower Health and Cisneros were dismissed on exemption/standing grounds. American Landmark's smaller scale and lack of tech-giant resources make big-settlement comparables weak anchors. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confidentiality/tracking claim survived MTD, showing courts will let privacy-tech claims proceed past pleading stage. Main risk: Dismissal like Tower Health/Cisneros if claim framed as statutory exemption (e.g., ordinary business use) or lacks concrete injury under wiretap statute. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $11K–$1.12M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixing tech giants and healthcare; no prior case history for this defendant; actual class size and claim theory unconfirmed. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D.N.C. | 2026-10-20 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| AUTOLENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER INC.source ↗ filed by PHILADELPHIA, PA 19133 · Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro · No. 2:26-cv-08024 · 15:1640 Truth in Lending · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims against website tracking tech show split outcomes: Bayhealth survived breach-of-confidentiality, Gunnar BIPA claims revived on appeal, but Santoro and Integris saw core privacy claims dismissed or unclear. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confirms website-tracking privacy claims can survive MTD when duty/confidentiality plausibly pled, relevant if PA WESCA claim similarly framed. Main risk: Dismissal risk mirrors Santoro v. Tower Health, where Pixel/tracking-based privacy claims were dismissed for lack of cognizable harm. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $250K–$5M No defendant-specific litigation history; class size is estimated, not sourced from disclosed traffic data; small-n settlement anchor limits precision. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-20 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
Subscribers export any search as CSV or pull it through the JSON API — defendant, court, practice area, settlement value and per-member comps included.