← 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.
4,069 records · $108.68B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / comps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairport Asset Management REO 2, LLCsource ↗ Judge Selene D. Maddox · No. 26-01035 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | Bankr. N.D. Miss. | 2026-09-21 | |
| QVC, INC.source ↗ Judge Antonio M. Pozos · No. 2:26-cv-07269 · 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-21 | |
| ACV Auctions Incsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-11520 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ill. | 2026-09-21 | |
| AECOMsource ↗ Judge Karen Gren Scholer · No. 3:26-cv-03188 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Tex. | 2026-09-21 | |
| FRONTAGE LABORATORIES, INC.source ↗ filed by CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW LLC · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-07275 · 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel health-data claims, directly binding in E.D. Pa., while Doe v. Bayhealth shows confidentiality claims can survive if pled as breach of duty rather than pure wiretap theory. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Patrick Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) - controlling circuit precedent affirming dismissal of tracking-technology health privacy claims, weighing heavily against survival here. Main risk: Third Circuit precedent (Tower Health) makes dismissal with prejudice a real possibility for similar tracking/disclosure theories in this circuit Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $50K–$5M Small sample of realized per-member data and unclear class definition for a B2B/CRO defendant make this estimate highly speculative. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Lyft, Inc.source ↗ filed by H. Barritt Peterson Jr. & Associates · Judge James Kelleher Bredar · No. 1:26-cv-03736 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy claims involving tracking/consent show split outcomes: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived while Santoro's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice; Gunnar Optiks shows courts often defer dismissal pending factual development. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M 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 MTD on confidentiality duty theory, closest analog to app-based data-sharing wiretap claims. Main risk: Dismissal on pleadings like Santoro v. Tower Health, where undue delay and failure to plead individualized harm doomed claim. This defendant: Lyft faces recurring privacy/wiretap suits (e.g., Blue v. Lyft) plus prior TCPA settlement, suggesting pattern of consumer-data litigation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45M–$900M Small n, wide class-size uncertainty, and mixed early-stage rulings make this a low-confidence, rough directional estimate only. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Maryland | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| LendingTree, Inc.source ↗ No. 4:26-cv-07972 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Tex. | 2026-09-21 | |
| ONEWELL, LLCsource ↗ Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl · No. 5:26-cv-07268 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-21 | |
| American Addiction Centers, Inc.source ↗ filed by Wise Law Firm, PLC · No. 3:26-cv-00714 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Healthcare-tracking privacy claims split sharply across circuits: Bayhealth Medical Ctr. survived breach-of-confidentiality claims for tracking tech, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claims were dismissed with prejudice and affirmed by the Third Circuit. Nevada courts have not yet settled whether wiretap-style tracking claims against treatment providers survive early motions. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M 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. — healthcare provider tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closest factual analog to AAC's likely pixel/chat tracking exposure. Main risk: Dismissal on consent/HIPAA-exclusion or lack-of-interception grounds, as in Tower Health (Meta Pixel claims dismissed, affirmed 3rd Cir.) and Nuance (BIPA exemption). This defendant: AAC previously settled a data breach suit for $2.8M, showing willingness to settle privacy claims rather than litigate to verdict. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $450K–$6.30M Small comparable sample, mixed circuit outcomes, and no direct AAC wiretap ruling make this a low-confidence, directional estimate only. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Nev. | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Brooklyn Karma, Corp.source ↗ filed by Law Office of Jennifer E. Tucek, PC · No. 1:26-cv-05836 · 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | E.D.N.Y | 2026-09-21 | |
| Equifax Information Services LLCsource ↗ filed by Patti Zabaleta Law Group · Judge Kyle C. Dudek · No. 2:26-cv-02586 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-09-21 | |
| Equifax Information Services, LLCsource ↗ Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle · No. 8:26-cv-02733 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-09-21 | |
| Levoit Core or EverestAirsource ↗ | Settlement | False Advertising | 2026-09-21 | ||
| Excel Fitnesssource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-21 | $175K | |
| BuzzFeed Media Enterprises, Inc.source ↗ filed by Milberg, PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-08185 · 28:1332tn Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking privacy claims split in comparables: Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice, while Bayhealth's confidentiality claim and Gunnar's BIPA claim survived pleading-stage challenges. Wiretap theories remain fact-intensive and outcome hinges on specific tracking mechanism alleged against BuzzFeed. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) - nearly identical Meta Pixel/health-data sharing theory dismissed with prejudice, signaling risk for similar ad-tech tracking claims. Main risk: Dismissal on pleadings similar to Tower Health, where pixel-based data sharing was found insufficiently 'individually identifiable' or consented-to under applicable wiretap/privacy statutes Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $15M–$300M No prior BuzzFeed privacy litigation on record; class size and per-member figures are rough estimates from traffic data, not confirmed user tracking scope. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| WPM Pathology Lab, Salina Regional Healthsource ↗ claims-made | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-21 | ||
| Furniture Mart USAsource ↗ claims-made | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-21 | ||
| Summit Medical Groupsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-21 | $500K | |
| Altrua HealthSharesource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | 2026-09-21 | $1.10M | |
| AT&Tsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-21 | $8K | |
| LELIOR GROUP, LLCsource ↗ filed by Brasil , Brasil PA · Judge Jose E. Martinez · No. 1:26-cv-26496 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾ADA Title III website/accessibility suits split on outcome: Lowell v. Lyft shows dismissal is real risk if plaintiff can't show effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA claims where barriers were well-documented. Small e-commerce defendants like Lelior often settle quickly to avoid fee exposure highlighted in Price v. Diab. Comparable settlements $65K–$530K median $200K · n=3 Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K · Home Depot U.S.A., $65K Key precedent: Price v. Diab (9th Cir.) — shows even default/injunctive resolution triggers prevailing-party fee liability, pressuring early settlement. Main risk: Mootness/voluntary remediation defense (as in Burton) or failure to plead a plausible, effective accommodation (as in Lowell v. Lyft) leading to dismissal. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$10K No prior records for this defendant and no directly comparable small-business ADA settlements; figures are rough proxies from statutory structure, not realized data. · grounded in 7 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-09-20 | $65K–$530K comparable settlements |
| WPM Pathology Lab, Salina Regional Healthsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | $4K | |
| Neutrogena Skin360source ↗ common fund · ~11,000 members · Pro rata share /member · No. 3:22-CV-03149-MAS-RLS | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Not specified | 2026-09-20 | $4.70M |
| Toyota Industries Corporation and related Toyota Material Handling companiessource ↗ common fund · ~$2,500/member · No. 3:24-cv-06640-JSC | Settlement | False Advertising | N.D. Cal. | 2026-09-20 | $299.50M |
| Steel Warehousesource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | ||
| FirstCashsource ↗ common fund · Varies /member · No. 4:21-cv-01251-P | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 4:21-cv-01251-P | 2026-09-20 | $9M |
| TED Foundationsource ↗ | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | 2026-09-20 | ||
| Yes Communitiessource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | $3K | |
| California Casualtysource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | $4K | |
| Furniture Mart USAsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | $5K | |
| Stockpilesource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-20 | $600K | |
| Sportsman's Guidesource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Pennsylvania | 2026-09-20 | $1M |
| USA Clinics Groupsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | 2026-09-20 | $574K | |
| Red Robinsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Washington | 2026-09-20 | $1.67M |
| O'Reilly Automotivesource ↗ common fund · class counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Capozzi Adler, Capozzi Adler, P.C., FortmanSpann, LLC · defense: Spencer Fane LLP-KCMO, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP-Boston, Spencer Fane LLP-SpfldMO · No. 6:22-cv-03111 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri | 2026-09-20 | $18.80M |
| Xactussource ↗ common fund · ~28,416 members · ~$500/member · No. 2:23-CV-04531-JMY | Settlement | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | 2026-09-20 | $2.40M | |
| Atrium Healthsource ↗ common fund · ~$10/member · class counsel: Almeida Law Group, Weitz & Luxenberg, PC, Almeida Law Group LLC · defense: Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Baker Hostetler · No. 25CV057073-590 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina | 2026-09-20 | $1.80M |
| Macys.com, LLCsource ↗ filed by Jennings & Earley PLLC · Judge Matthew J. Maddox · No. 1:26-cv-03724 · 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap claims split: Doe v. Bayhealth survived on confidentiality duty, Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Santoro v. Tower Health and Integris show tracking-pixel claims often falter at pleading or removal stage. Outcome for Macy's likely turns on specific tracking tech (pixel/session replay) alleged. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$100 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived MTD on confidentiality theory analogous to tracking-tech disclosure claims relevant here. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of individualized harm/standing, as in Santoro v. Tower Health where Meta Pixel claims were dismissed with prejudice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $58M–$500M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixes health-privacy and biometric cases; actual claims mechanics (tracking tech type, jurisdictional wiretap statute) could shift outcome significantly. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Maryland | 2026-09-18 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Chicago Candy Co., Inc.source ↗ Judge Dena M. Coggins · No. 2:26-cv-03316 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Cal. | 2026-09-18 | |
| Blaklader, LLCsource ↗ filed by Gottlieb & Associates · Judge Edgardo Ramos · No. 1:26-cv-08130 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA accessibility claims fail without proof modifications are effective, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive at summary judgment; outcome is fact-specific and venue-dependent. 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.) is most relevant as controlling S.D.N.Y./2d Cir. authority requiring plaintiff to prove proposed accommodation is reasonable and effective. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a plausible, effective accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft affirming dismissal on this exact ground Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5K–$150K Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixing ADA sub-theories (website, employment, transit); true class size and per-member data for this defendant are unverified. · grounded in 7 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-18 | $65K–$530K 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.