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.
140 records · $7.80B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / ruling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMCP USA, INC. Judge Anuraang H. Singhal · No. 0:26-cv-61946 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-07-15 | |
| Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC No. 4:26-cv-40178 · 28:1446 Notice of Removal | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | D. Mass. | 2026-07-15 | |
| Mableton Road LLC filed by Law Office of Pete Monismith · Judge Amy Mil Totenberg · No. 1:26-cv-03957 · 42:12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Outlook: mixed · est. $3K–$100K ▾Only one comparable, Price v. Diab, shows underlying ADA liability can be affirmed via default judgment while attorney's fee entitlement is reversed on appeal, signaling uncertain recovery even after a win. Est. value $3K–$100K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% (1 of 1 comparable had mixed outcome: claim affirmed, fees reversed) Class size: 1–5 — ADA Title III suits are typically single-plaintiff/tester actions, not certified classes; no class signals in web data Per member: $3000–$20000 — ADA Title III has no statutory damages; recovery is largely attorney's fees + remediation cost, discounted per Price v. Diab fee risk Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) - prevailing-party status for fee-shifting under 42 U.S.C. §12205 is contestable even after default judgment/injunction. Main risk: Fee-shifting disputes post-judgment, as in Price v. Diab, could erode plaintiff's practical recovery despite injunctive win Single comparable ruling, no settlement or prior-defendant data; ADA Title III lacks damages remedy, so EV is fee/remediation-driven, not per-class-member payout. · grounded in 1 rulings + 0 settlements | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | N.D. Ga. | 2026-07-15 | $3K–$100K est. value |
| Equifax Information Services LLC filed by Seraph Legal, PA · Judge John Leonard Badalamenti · No. 8:26-cv-02022 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: mixed · est. –$1K ▾Portfolio Recovery v. Grimes shows FDCPA counterclaims often dismissed on procedural grounds, while Eiler reflects tax treatment risk not case merits. No FCRA merits ruling directly favors either side. Est. value –$1K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~40-50% — mixed comparable outcomes, no direct FCRA merits precedent found Class size: 1–1 — Filing appears to be an individual FCRA/FDCPA action, not a certified class Per member: $100–$1000 — FCRA statutory damages $100-$1,000; no class discount since single plaintiff Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery Assocs. v. Grimes — shows FDCPA claims frequently dismissed at threshold, signaling survival is uncertain. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading/jurisdictional grounds, as counterclaims were dismissed in Grimes. This defendant: Multiple prior FCRA filings (McClary, Ali) suggest Equifax faces recurring individual consumer suits. Small sample, no merits ruling on this exact claim; treated as individual suit given lack of class certification signal. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-15 | –$1K est. value |
| EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC Judge Paul Steven Diamond · No. 2:26-cv-04925 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-07-15 | |
| Kao USA Inc. filed by Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC · No. 1:26-cv-05992 · 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud Outlook: mixed · est. $1.25M–$120M ▾KetoNatural shows commercial-speech false advertising claims can survive Rule 12(b)(6) when statements are literally false, but Mehl illustrates preemption/dismissal risk for broad consumer-protection theories. No Kao-specific precedent exists, so outcome is uncertain but plausible to advance. Est. value $1.25M–$120M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — mixed outcomes across comparables (1 of 3 rulings show partial survival on core claim) Class size: 500,000–5,000,000 — Kao USA's mass-market retail brands (Jergens, Bioré, Curél, John Frieda) imply broad national consumer base Per member: $5–$40 — Comparable false-advertising settlements pay $5-$150/member depending on proof of purchase; discounted for low-value personal care items Key precedent: KetoNatural v. Hill's Pet Nutrition - shows false-advertising claims on a defendant's own commercial statements can survive dismissal, unlike third-party statements. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of literal falsity or puffery, as partially occurred in KetoNatural for non-defendant statements. Small comparable sample, no defendant-specific history, and class size is inferred from general product reach, not verified sales data. · grounded in 4 rulings + 8 settlements | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-15 | $1.25M–$120M est. value |
| Blackstone Medical Services The Seventh Circuit held that 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)'s private right of action for repeated 'telephone calls' does not encompass text messages based on the ordinary public | Opinion | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | 7th Cir. | 2026-07-14 | affirmed |
| James Wendelin Eiler and Kathryn Ann Eiler The full settlement proceeds, including the attorney's fees and costs portion, are includible in the Eilers' gross income because the FCRA fee-shifting provisions do not | Opinion | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | Tax Ct. | 2026-07-14 | Deficiency upheld for petitioners |
| Mycajita Corporation No. 1:26-cv-05935 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-14 | |
| TransUnion LLC Judge Thomas Patrick Barber · No. 8:26-cv-02013 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | |
| Cruise, LLC The court held that the Cruise Terms of Service sign-in wrap agreement, including its arbitration clause, was enforceable against Wilkins, and that GM entities sued as ag | Opinion | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Cal. Ct. App. | 2026-07-14 | reversed |
| Hill's Pet Nutrition The Tenth Circuit held that KetoNatural plausibly alleged that some of Hill's own statements constituted commercial speech that was literally false, sufficient to survive | Opinion | False Advertising | 10th Cir. | 2026-07-14 | affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded |
| The Westin Alexandria Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles · No. 1:26-cv-02087 · 28:1331 Federal Question | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Va. | 2026-07-14 | |
| Google LLC Judge Ajay S. Krishnan · No. 3:26-cv-07182 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-07-14 | |
| General Motors LLC Judge Barry Lynn Winmill · No. 4:26-cv-00437 · 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Idaho | 2026-07-14 | |
| Amazon.com, Inc. filed by Farrell & Fuller LLC · Judge William Frederic Jung · No. 8:26-cv-02019 · 28:1332 Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices Outlook: uncertain · est. $25M–$3.75B ▾No prior wiretap/privacy rulings against Amazon exist to anchor survival odds, and comparable settlements (Google $68M, Flo $59.5M) show huge variance from $0 to $68M depending on class scope and claim strength. Est. value $25M–$3.75B = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~40-50% — no direct rulings; wiretap claims often survive initial motions but face certification hurdles Class (from complaint): The People of the State of California (parens patriae action on behalf of California consumers and merchants harmed by Amazon's anticompetitive conduct) Class size: 5,000,000–50,000,000 — Amazon's hundreds of millions of US customers/Prime/Alexa users per web stats Per member: $5–$75 — CIPA-style $5,000 statutory anchor discounted ~99% to realized class-settlement per-member payouts seen in comparables Key precedent: None on record for this defendant/theory; closest analogs are Google and Flo settlements involving tracking/data-sharing claims. Main risk: Two of seven comparables settled for $0, showing dismissal or non-certification risk is real absent strong wiretap-interception facts. No rulings or prior Amazon records exist for this theory; estimate relies heavily on cross-defendant settlement analogs and broad class-size assumptions. · grounded in 0 rulings + 7 settlements | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | $25M–$3.75B est. value |
| Specialty Technologies, LLC filed by Gottlieb & Associates · No. 1:26-cv-05937 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Outlook: mixed · est. –$5K ▾Price v. Diab confirms fee-shifting availability for prevailing ADA plaintiffs even via default judgment, supporting fee recovery, but reversal on fee entitlement shows courts scrutinize prevailing-party status closely. No settlement or prior defendant data limits predictive strength. Est. value –$5K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — 1 of 2 claims in comparable ruling affirmed, fee claim reversed Class size: 1–1 — Single-plaintiff ADA accessibility claim; no class allegations in web signals Per member: $0–$5000 — ADA Title III has no statutory damages; range reflects possible attorney's fee award only Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) - clarifies prevailing-party fee entitlement under 42 U.S.C. §12205, relevant if injunctive relief is granted here. Main risk: Title III ADA claims yield only injunctive relief/fees, not damages, per Price v. Diab's fee-focused holding; limited monetary upside. Single comparable ruling and no settlement data; ADA Title III claims rarely yield per-member monetary recovery absent state-law overlay. · grounded in 1 rulings + 0 settlements | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-14 | –$5K est. value |
| Fiskars Living US, LLC filed by Gottlieb & Associates · No. 1:26-cv-05934 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Outlook: uncertain · est. –$5K ▾Price v. Diab shows ADA plaintiffs can secure injunctive relief via default judgment, but fee-shifting entitlement was reversed, signaling courts scrutinize prevailing-party status closely. No settlement or prior Fiskars data limits calibration. Est. value –$5K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — 1 of 1 comparable rulings partially favorable (injunctive relief affirmed, fees reversed) Class size: 1–1 — ADA Title III suits are typically individual; no class certification evidence in web signals Per member: $0–$5000 — No statutory damages under ADA Title III; range reflects potential NYCHRL compensatory/civil penalty exposure Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) - clarifies default judgments can support ADA injunctive relief but fee awards remain contested. Main risk: Attorney's fee denial risk per Price v. Diab reversal, reducing plaintiff leverage even after winning injunctive relief. Single comparable ruling and no defendant history; ADA Title III lacks damages, so exposure is mainly injunctive/fee-based. · grounded in 1 rulings + 0 settlements | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-14 | –$5K est. value |
| Untuckit Retail, LLC filed by Sconzo Law Office, P.A. · Judge Ed Artau · No. 9:26-cv-80823 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act Outlook: mixed · est. $2K–$10K ▾Only one comparable, Price v. Diab, shows courts affirm ADA liability/injunctive relief but split on attorney's fee entitlement, reflecting inconsistent downstream outcomes even after default judgment. Est. value $2K–$10K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — 1 of 1 comparable rulings mixed (affirmed merits, reversed fees) Class size: 1–1 — ADA Title III suits are typically single-plaintiff injunctive actions, not classwide Per member: $5000–$20000 — No statutory damages under ADA Title III; recovery is injunctive compliance plus attorney's fees, typical range in similar suits Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) — confirms injunctive relief affirmable but fee entitlement uncertain, mirroring likely fee dispute here if plaintiff prevails. Main risk: Fee-shifting entitlement may be denied or curtailed post-judgment as in Price v. Diab, reducing plaintiff's practical recovery even if merits succeed. Single comparable ruling and no defendant-specific history severely limit reliability; ADA Title III lacks statutory per-member damages, so figures reflect fee/settlement proxies only. · grounded in 1 rulings + 0 settlements | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | $2K–$10K est. value |
| THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC No. 1:26-cv-00161 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | N.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | |
| Vera Bradley Sales, LLC No. 6:26-cv-01523 · Americans with Disabilities Act | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | |
| Experian Information Solutions, Inc. filed by Daniel Lenghea Law, PA · No. 8:26-cv-02009 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: mixed · est. $250K–$30M ▾Both cited comparables ended in dismissal—Eiler on tax treatment of FCRA settlement proceeds, Grimes on FDCPA/CSPA counterclaims—suggesting courts scrutinize procedural and substantive FCRA/FDCPA theories closely. No merits ruling directly favors plaintiffs here. Est. value $250K–$30M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~35% — both comparable rulings resulted in dismissal of core FCRA/FDCPA theories Class size: 5,000–100,000 — Experian's scale as major CRA implies large potential class from credit report disputes Per member: $50–$300 — FCRA $100-$1,000 statutory anchor, discounted ~10-30% per typical CRA class settlement realization Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery v. Grimes: FDCPA counterclaim dismissed, showing courts routinely reject FDCPA claims absent clear statutory violation. Main risk: Claim dismissal on threshold grounds, as in Grimes (FDCPA counterclaim dismissed) and Eiler (fee-shifting theory rejected). Small, indirect comparable set; class size and survival odds highly uncertain without case-specific facts or class certification data. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | $250K–$30M est. value |
| Equifax Consumer Services, LLC filed by Daniel Lenghea Law, PA · Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle · No. 8:26-cv-02010 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: mixed · est. $225K–$90M ▾Both comparable rulings resulted in dismissals of FCRA/FDCPA-adjacent claims (Eiler tax ruling, Portfolio Recovery counterclaims), suggesting courts scrutinize FCRA theories closely; however, settlement data show real exposure once claims survive. Est. value $225K–$90M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~30-40% — both comparable rulings resulted in dismissal of core claims Class size: 50,000–2,000,000 — Equifax's national consumer credit file scale; no case-specific class size in web signals Per member: $15–$150 — FCRA statutory $100-1,000 discounted to ~10-15% realized fraction typical in class settlements Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery Assocs. v. Grimes — FDCPA counterclaim dismissed, showing procedural/jurisdictional hurdles common to consumer credit claims. Main risk: Claims dismissed at pleading stage as in Grimes, or reclassified as non-fee-shifting per Eiler tax treatment, reducing settlement leverage. Comparable rulings are only tangentially on-point; class size and per-member figures are broad estimates absent case-specific data. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | $225K–$90M est. value |
| JOHNSON MARK LLC filed by Ciment Law Firm, PLLC, TX · Judge Brantley David Starr · No. 3:26-cv-02319 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act Outlook: adverse · est. –$125K ▾Both comparables resulted in dismissals: Eiler upheld IRS treatment against FCRA fee-shifting arguments, and Grimes rejected FDCPA/consumer-protection counterclaims entirely. No comparable shows plaintiff-side success on these specific FCRA/FDCPA theories. Est. value –$125K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~0% to 25% — 0 of 2 comparable rulings resulted in plaintiff success Class size: 1–500 — Johnson Mark LLC appears to be a small Utah debt-collection law firm; no class-action signals found, likely individual claim Per member: $100–$1000 — FCRA statutory range $100-$1,000 per violation; FDCPA capped ~$1,000; no discount applied given likely individual (non-class) suit Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery v. Grimes — FDCPA counterclaim dismissed, showing courts skeptical of bolt-on consumer-credit claims against collection-related entities. Main risk: Dismissal on the merits, mirroring Grimes where FDCPA and related claims were dismissed outright by the court. Extremely limited data; defendant appears to be small collection-law firm, not a large corporate defendant, and case may be individual rather than class-based, undermining settlement comparables. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | N.D. Tex. | 2026-07-14 | –$125K est. value |
| Checkr, Inc. filed by Love Consumer Law · Judge William Martin Conley · No. 3:26-cv-00636 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: mixed · est. $2.50M–$18M ▾Comparable rulings (Eiler, Portfolio Recovery) show courts often dismiss FCRA/FDCPA-adjacent claims on technical or fee-shifting grounds, suggesting real dismissal risk even for background-check FCRA suits like this one. Est. value $2.50M–$18M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~40-50% — comparable rulings split, with dismissals common on procedural grounds Class size: 50,000–750,000 — Checkr processes background checks for 100,000+ business customers; consumer class likely a subset of applicants screened Per member: $50–$250 — FCRA statutory range $100-$1,000 discounted ~10-25% to typical class settlement realized value Key precedent: RentGrow settlement ($2.2M) is closest factual analog — same tenant/employment screening FCRA theory against a similar data vendor. Main risk: Dismissal on standing or fee-shifting technicalities, as seen in Eiler and Portfolio Recovery rulings. Small comparable sample, no direct FCRA merits ruling for Checkr; estimates are illustrative, not predictive. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | W.D. Wis. | 2026-07-14 | $2.50M–$18M est. value |
| TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC. filed by East End Trial Group LLC · No. 2:26-cv-04879 Outlook: uncertain · est. $25K–$4.50M ▾KetoNatural shows false advertising claims can survive 12(b)(6) if statements are commercial speech/literally false, but Mehl shows preemption/dismissal risk for consumer-protection theories tied to regulated industries. Small defendant with no prior litigation history limits predictive signal. Est. value $25K–$4.50M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~40-50% — mixed outcomes across comparables (1 of 3 rulings largely survived, 1 fully dismissed, 1 vacated on unrelated grounds) Class size: 500–15,000 — Small/mid-size administrative services firm per LinkedIn/ZoomInfo; likely limited to plan members or clients, not mass consumer base Per member: $50–$300 — False advertising restitution/price-premium model, discounted from statutory-type anchors given small company scale and no punitive multiplier evidence Key precedent: KetoNatural v. Hill's Pet Nutrition - shows plausible false advertising claims on defendant's own statements can survive dismissal, unlike third-party statements. Main risk: Dismissal on preemption or failure to plead literal falsity, similar to Mehl v. BP Energy and partial dismissals in KetoNatural No prior record for defendant; class size is speculative given lack of direct revenue/customer data; small company scale makes large settlement comparables poor fit. · grounded in 4 rulings + 8 settlements | Filing | False Advertising | E.D. Pa. | 2026-07-14 | $25K–$4.50M est. value |
| Westlake Financial Judge Marcia Morales Howard · No. 3:26-cv-01801 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act | Filing | False Advertising | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-14 | |
| Cole Haan LLC filed by McNaul Ebel Pllc · Judge Tana Lin · No. 2:26-cv-02463 · 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud Outlook: mixed · est. $250K–$15M ▾KetoNatural v. Hill's shows false-advertising claims often survive in part at 12(b)(6) when defendant's own statements are alleged literally false, but third-party statements get dismissed, suggesting partial survival is likely here too. Est. value $250K–$15M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — partial survival pattern seen in KetoNatural (1 of 1 closely analogous ruling, mixed outcome) Class size: 100,000–1,000,000 — National footwear/accessories retailer with broad e-commerce and retail footprint per web signals; no litigation-specific figures available Per member: $5–$30 — Restitution/price-premium model for false advertising, discounted per typical settlement realized fractions (5-15% of nominal harm) Key precedent: KetoNatural Pet Foods v. Hill's Pet Nutrition — Lanham Act false advertising claim survived in part on defendant's own commercial speech, a close analog to Cole Haan's marketing claims. Main risk: Dismissal of claims tied to third-party or ambiguous marketing statements, as occurred with non-defendant statements in KetoNatural. No prior Cole Haan litigation data; class size and per-member figures are inferred from industry comparables, not case-specific filings. · grounded in 4 rulings + 8 settlements | Filing | False Advertising | W.D. Wash. | 2026-07-13 | $250K–$15M est. value |
| Diab The Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff who obtains a default judgment and permanent injunctive relief altering the defendant's behavior in her favor is a 'prevailing par | Opinion | ADA / Accessibility | 9th Cir. | 2026-07-13 | reversed and remanded |
| Clearview AI, Inc. The Seventh Circuit vacated approval of the class settlement because no class representative independently represented the disfavored Nationwide Class in negotiating the | Opinion | False Advertising | 7th Cir. | 2026-07-13 | vacated and remanded |
| Rubio filed by Paul A. Batista PC · No. 1:26-cv-05893 | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Flowers Foods Incorporated filed by Don Bivens PLLC · No. 2:26-cv-04862 Outlook: uncertain · est. $100K–$20M ▾No rulings exist yet for Privacy & Wiretap claims against Flowers Foods; comparable settlements (Google $68M, Flo $59.5M, Kaiser $47.5M) involved far larger, data-intensive platforms, limiting direct analogy. Est. value $100K–$20M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~40% — no direct rulings, but comparable low-tech defendants often see dismissal Class (from complaint): Consumers who purchased Flowers Foods Incorporated products during the applicable class period. Class size: 100,000–2,000,000 — Estimated website visitors/customers of a national bakery brand; no specific figures in web signals Per member: $1–$25 — CIPA-style $5,000 statutory anchor discounted heavily per typical 0.1%-1% realized settlement fraction Key precedent: None on record; closest analog is the Flo/Google/Flurry settlement ($59.5M) reflecting website/app tracking exposure. Main risk: Weak nexus between a food manufacturer's website analytics and wiretap statutes could lead to early dismissal, as seen in $0 outcomes (Google Play, Barefoot Dreams) Extremely sparse defendant-specific data; estimates rely on analogy to unrelated large-tech settlements, not verified class or revenue figures. · grounded in 0 rulings + 7 settlements | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Ariz. | 2026-07-13 | $100K–$20M est. value |
| MidFlorida Credit Union No. 8:26-cv-01987 | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Eminence Speaker, LLC filed by Gottlieb & Associates · No. 1:26-cv-05894 Outlook: uncertain · est. –$25K ▾Only comparable, Price v. Diab, addressed fee-shifting after default judgment, not merits of ADA website access claims; no defendant-specific rulings exist. ADA Title III typically yields injunctive relief, not per-member damages, limiting EV framing. Est. value –$25K = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~50% — 1 of 2 claims in comparable ruling survived (injunctive relief affirmed, fees reversed). Class size: 1–1 — ADA Title III suits are typically single-plaintiff injunctive actions; no class signals found. Per member: $0–$5000 — No statutory damages under ADA; only potential fee awards or NY state law damages if pled. Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) — shows injunctive relief can be affirmed even as fee awards are reversed, signaling courts split on remedies scope. Main risk: Attorney's fee entitlement may be denied even after injunctive win, per Price v. Diab, reducing plaintiff's incentive/recovery. Single comparable ruling and no defendant history make this a low-confidence, largely speculative estimate. · grounded in 1 rulings + 0 settlements | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-13 | –$25K est. value |
| JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation No. 1:26-cv-05898 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Status Audio LLC No. 1:26-cv-05899 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Elkins Ventures LLC No. 2:26-cv-01228 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | E.D. Wis. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Aamp Of Florida, Inc. No. 1:26-cv-05906 | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-13 | |
| Santander Consumer USA, Inc. filed by Gear Law, LLC · No. 8:26-cv-01994 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: adverse · est. $750K–$50M ▾Both cited comparables resulted in dismissal of FCRA/FDCPA-related claims (Eiler on fee-shifting, Grimes on FDCPA counterclaim), suggesting courts are skeptical of these theories absent adjudicated fee awards or proper jurisdiction. Est. value $750K–$50M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~30% — 0 of 2 comparable rulings survived to merits Class size: 50,000–500,000 — Santander Consumer USA is a large national auto lender/servicer; no direct class-size data in web signals, estimated from scale of consumer credit reporting volume. Per member: $15–$100 — FCRA statutory range $100-$1,000 per violation, discounted ~10-15% per typical class settlement realization. Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery v. Grimes - FDCPA counterclaim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, showing courts often resolve these claims procedurally before merits. Main risk: Early dismissal on jurisdictional or pleading grounds, as in Grimes, before reaching statutory damages merits. Small comparable sample (n=2 rulings, n=3 settlements) and no direct prior cases against this defendant limit reliability of this estimate. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-07-13 | $750K–$50M est. value |
| Checkr Inc filed by Law Office of Saraellen Hutchison Pllc · Judge S. Kate Vaughan · No. 3:26-cv-05774 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act Outlook: mixed · est. $600K–$14M ▾Comparable rulings show courts often side with defendants on FCRA/FDCPA technicalities (Eiler on fee-shifting, Grimes affirming dismissal of FDCPA counterclaim), suggesting procedural hurdles for plaintiffs, but background-check FCRA settlements (RentGrow $2.2M) show viable class exposure for similar business models. Est. value $600K–$14M = P(survival) × class × per-member Survival: ~35-45% — comparable rulings split against plaintiffs (2 of 2 dismissed/affirmed for defense) Class size: 50,000–300,000 — Checkr's 100K+ business customers each running multiple background checks implies large downstream consumer class Per member: $30–$120 — FCRA statutory $100-1000 anchor discounted to ~10-15% realized fraction typical in background-check class settlements Key precedent: Portfolio Recovery v. Grimes — FDCPA counterclaim dismissed, showing courts routinely reject FDCPA claims absent clear statutory violation. Main risk: Dismissal on technical/procedural grounds as in Grimes and Eiler, where FCRA/FDCPA claims failed despite strong facts. Small comparable sample (n=2 rulings, n=3 settlements) and no confirmed class-size data specific to Checkr litigation; figures are illustrative ranges only. · grounded in 2 rulings + 3 settlements | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | W.D. Wash. | 2026-07-13 | $600K–$14M est. value |