← 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.
2,720 records · $65.30B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / comps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kilwin's Chocolates Franchise, Inc.source ↗ No. 6:26-cv-01911 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | |
| BREITLING U.S.A. INCsource ↗ filed by Brasil , Brasil PA · No. 1:26-cv-25937 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Comparables split: Lowell v. Lyft shows courts dismiss ADA claims when plaintiff fails to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax and Price v. Diab show ADA claims and fee awards can survive/succeed. S.D. Fla. is a high-volume forum for ADA Title III website suits, often resolved quickly. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — shows plaintiff bears burden on reasonableness/effectiveness of modification, a common defense in accessibility suits like this one. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show injury-in-fact/standing or failure to prove effective modification, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$8K No settlement or verdict data specific to Breitling or this exact claim; estimate relies on general S.D. Fla. ADA litigation patterns and small comparable sample. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $2K–$8K rough EV |
| Mattress Firm, Inc.source ↗ filed by Adams & Associates, P.A. · No. 1:26-cv-25942 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA Title III accessibility claims survive dismissal often but face a high bar on remedy scope, as seen in Lowell v. Lyft (plaintiff must prove modification effectiveness) and Holmes v. Bax (ADA claims affirmed but injunction vacated for remedy analysis). Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. — shows courts require plaintiffs to substantiate that requested accessibility fixes are reasonable/effective, a likely fight point here. Main risk: Dismissal or narrowed injunctive relief if plaintiff cannot show proposed accessibility modifications are readily achievable/effective, per Lowell v. Lyft. This defendant: Prior Payero v. Mattress Firm settlement suggests recurring ADA accessibility exposure and pattern of resolving via settlement rather than litigating to judgment. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3K–$75K Small, non-uniform comparable set mixes ADA contexts (transportation, employment, accommodation); no direct Mattress Firm accessibility rulings or settlement figures exist. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $3K–$75K rough EV |
| CALICO CANAL PROPERTIES LLCsource ↗ filed by Anthony J. Perez Law Group, PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-25949 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA accessibility rulings split: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations while Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove reasonable modification, showing outcome hinges heavily on specific facts and remedy sought. Price v. Diab shows even default wins can lose fee entitlement on appeal. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft — dismissal affirmed because plaintiff bore burden to prove proposed accommodation was effective, a common failure point in ADA accessibility pleadings. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a plausible, effective remedy, as in Lowell v. Lyft, or loss of fee entitlement even after favorable outcome, as in Price v. Diab Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$8K Web signals are unrelated to this defendant (generic 'Calico' networking/brand hits), so class-size and defendant-pattern data are essentially absent; estimate relies on generalized ADA Title III litigation patterns, not case-specific facts. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $2K–$8K rough EV |
| ZONG TEA, LLCsource ↗ filed by Sconzo Law Office, P.A. · No. 8:26-cv-02534 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA accessibility suits show mixed outcomes: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations while Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove reasonableness of proposed modifications, showing outcome hinges on specificity of alleged barriers. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — dismissal affirmed because plaintiffs failed to prove requested accommodation was reasonable/effective, a common pleading pitfall in ADA suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, effective accommodation/barrier, as in Lowell v. Lyft Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$38K No settlements or verdicts on this exact defendant/theory combo; estimate relies on general ADA Title III litigation patterns, not case-specific data. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $2K–$38K rough EV |
| SOYTAKO, LLCsource ↗ filed by Sconzo Law Office, P.A. · No. 6:26-cv-01922 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Comparables are loosely analogous: Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA accessibility claims often dismissed absent proof of effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive when paired with strong factual records. No settlements or verdicts specific to this defendant or claim type exist to anchor value. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. (2d Cir.) — affirmed dismissal because plaintiff bore burden to show proposed accommodation was reasonable/effective, a common failure point in ADA accessibility suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a plausible, effective remediation/accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$10K Web signals are largely irrelevant/noisy (unrelated companies), no verified defendant size or class data; estimate relies on general ADA Title III litigation patterns, not case-specific facts. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $2K–$10K rough EV |
| Nuance Communications, Inc.source ↗ The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal because Nuance qualifies as a 'financial institution' exempt under BIPA §25(c), since its voice-authentication service for Schwab c · view case timeline → | Opinion | Privacy & Wiretap | 7th Cir. | 2026-08-28 | Affirmed (judgment for defendant) |
| CORECARE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.source ↗ No. 2:26-cv-06420 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Better Path Financial LLCsource ↗ filed by Kazerouni Law Group, APC · Judge Todd Wallace Robinson · No. 3:26-cv-04913 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M ▾TCPA robocall/text claims show split outcomes: League of Women Voters v. Kramer survived MTD on similar unconsented robocall claims, while Howard v. RNC and Perrong v. Bradford were dismissed on technical/statutory-scope grounds not obviously applicable here. Hulce v. Zipongo shows solicitation-definition disputes can defeat TCPA claims even at summary judgment. 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, L.L.C. $61M · ccAdvertising $32.42M Key precedent: League of Women Voters v. Kramer (D.N.H.) - TCPA robocall claim survived MTD with adequately alleged concrete injury, closest procedural analog to this filing stage. Main risk: Dismissal if calls/texts don't meet strict statutory definitions of 'automated' or 'solicitation' under TCPA, as in Howard v. RNC and Hulce v. Zipongo. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20K–$2.25M Small sample of rulings/settlements skewed toward large national defendants; class size and defendant solvency for this small debt-relief company are speculative from web signals alone. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Cal. | 2026-08-28 | $29.50M–$76M comparable settlements |
| 1995 Holdings, Incsource ↗ filed by Sterling Attorneys at Law P.C. · Judge Susan K. Declercq · No. 2:26-cv-13088 · 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived motions to dismiss on data-collection theories, while Santoro (Meta Pixel) and Cisneros (BIPA) were dismissed on statutory-exemption and pleading grounds. Outcome likely turns on specific data-sharing mechanics and consent language, which are unclear from filing alone. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. is most analogous — survived MTD on breach-of-confidentiality theory tied to tracking tech disclosures, showing courts will let privacy claims proceed past pleading stage. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or standing grounds, as in Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance, where defendant qualified for exemption or failed loss-causation pleading. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $145K–$15M Web signals provided no usable defendant-specific facts (class size, revenue, conduct); estimates rely heavily on generic comparables and carry wide uncertainty. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mich. | 2026-08-28 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Acrisure Mortgage LLCsource ↗ filed by Dave Maxfield, Attorney, LLC · Judge Mary Geiger Lewis · No. 1:26-cv-03744 · 15:1691 Equal Credit Opportunity Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar (remand) survived pleading stage, while Cisneros and Santoro were dismissed on statutory exemptions or standing grounds. No case directly involves mortgage-call recording, adding uncertainty to Acrisure's specific exposure. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Gunnar Optiks (7th Cir.) - shows wiretap/privacy claims often survive MTD when factual questions about consent/exclusions remain unresolved. Main risk: Dismissal via statutory exemption or lack of individualized harm, as in Cisneros (BIPA financial-institution exemption) and Santoro (Meta Pixel dismissed) Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $125K–$2.50M Small, non-mortgage-specific comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough proxies, not case-specific data. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-08-28 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Therabody, Inc.source ↗ Judge Virginia K. Demarchi · No. 5:26-cv-09191 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.source ↗ Judge John Leonard Badalamenti · No. 8:26-cv-02518 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | |
| LVNV FUNDING, LLCsource ↗ filed by LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS S SCHWARTZ · No. 2:26-cv-06444 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Penningsource ↗ Judge Shalina D. Kumar · No. 2:26-cv-13091 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | E.D. Mich. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospitalsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-08-28 | ||
| Community Dental Caresource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-08-28 | $5K | |
| State Farmsource ↗ common fund · up to 21% of premiums paid (minimum limits) or up to 13% of premiums paid (non-minimum limits) /member · No. 18-CV-00328-KWR-SCY | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | District Court, New Mexico | 2026-08-28 | $15.58M |
| Pawn Americasource ↗ common fund · ~679,604 members · ~$5,000/member · No. 21-cv-02554 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-08-28 | $3.19M | |
| Google and YouTubesource ↗ common fund · ~1,000,000 members · $20 to $30 /member · No. 5:19-cv-07016 | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose) | 2026-08-28 | $7.50M |
| YouTube TVsource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | California | 2026-08-28 | |
| Volkswagensource ↗ | Settlement | Product Liability | 2026-08-28 | ||
| Bradford-Scott Datasource ↗ common fund · No. 1:24-CV-00117-HAB-ALT | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for Northern District of Indiana | 2026-08-28 | $2.39M |
| Essen Medical Associatessource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Not specified | 2026-08-28 | $4M |
| Fidelity Investmentsource ↗ common fund · No. 1:24-CV-12601-LTS | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | 2026-08-28 | $2.50M |
| Nationwidesource ↗ common fund · ~$18/member · No. 2022-022187-CA-01 | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida | 2026-08-28 | $1.40M |
| Targetsource ↗ common fund · ~$1,712/member · No. 24-2-25091-3 SEA | Settlement | False Advertising | Seattle (24-2-25091-3 SEA) | 2026-08-28 | $2.23M |
| Colgate-Palmolivesource ↗ common fund · up to average manufacturer's suggested retail price for one Class Product without proof of purchase, or full refund up to three Class Products with proof of purchase /member · No. 2:25-cv-06996-JMW | Settlement | False Advertising | United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York | 2026-08-28 | $2.90M |
| LastPasssource ↗ common fund · ~$25/member · No. 1:22-cv-12047-PBS | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | 2026-08-28 | $8.20M |
| Nelnetsource ↗ common fund · No. 4:22-cv-3191 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska | 2026-08-28 | $10M |
| Nutramax Laboratoriessource ↗ common fund · ~$150/member · No. 5:19-CV-00835-FMO-SP · view case timeline → | Settlement | False Advertising | Central District of California | 2026-08-28 | $11.50M |
| SiriusXMsource ↗ common fund · TBD /member · No. 2:22-cv-2261-CSB-EIL | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division | 2026-08-28 | $28M |
| Wells Fargosource ↗ common fund · ~102K members · ≈$323.53/member gross · class counsel: Zolna Swetland, LLC, Andrus Anderson LLP · defense: Delahunty & Nash LLP, Milberg, PLLC, King & Spalding LLP, King & Spalding · No. 1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN · view case timeline → | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-28 | $33M |
| Kaiser Permanentesource ↗ common fund · ~13.1M members · ~$30/member · view case timeline → | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | 2026-08-28 | $47.50M |
| DG Auto Sales, LLC and Donavin Greenbergsource ↗ The court affirmed summary judgment for DG Auto because pro se appellant Crockett failed to cite supporting summary-judgment evidence, failed to challenge all grounds rai · view case timeline → | Opinion | State statutes — FL / TX / GA | Tex. App.-Austin | 2026-08-27 | Affirmed |
| WellPoint Texas, Inc.source ↗ No. 4:26-cv-07185 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Tex. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Event Lab LLCsource ↗ No. 8:26-cv-02432 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-08-27 | |
| DAMI REALTY LLCsource ↗ filed by Anthony J. Perez Law Group, PLLC · Judge Jacqueline Becerra · No. 1:26-cv-25888 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-27 | |
| EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLCsource ↗ filed by Garibian Law Offices PC · Judge Antonio M. Pozos · No. 2:26-cv-06394 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 | |
| CAPITAL ONE, N.A.source ↗ filed by DANVILLE, PA 17821 · No. 2:26-cv-06405 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 |
Subscribers export any search as CSV or pull it through the JSON API — defendant, court, practice area, settlement value and per-member comps included.