← 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.
4,119 records · $108.68B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / comps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trans Union, LLCsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | 2026-11-06 | $8.31M | |
| Tyson, Hormel, Clemens, Seaboard, Triumphsource ↗ common fund · Not yet determined, pro rata based on total valid claims filed /member · No. 0:18-cv-1776-JRT-JFD | Settlement | Antitrust / Price-Fixing | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota | 2026-11-06 | $117.06M |
| Pork processorssource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Antitrust / Price-Fixing | District of Minnesota | 2026-11-06 | $117.06M |
| CVSsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-11-06 | ||
| Laboratory Services Cooperative (Planned Parenthood Lab)source ↗ common fund · No. 2:25-cv-00685-BJR | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | 2026-11-06 | $6.10M |
| Google, Flo, Flurrysource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Court Jurisdiction Not Specified | 2026-11-06 | $59.50M |
| Vesync (US) Corp.source ↗ common fund · class counsel: Bursor & Fisher, P.A.; Sinderbrand Law Group, P.C.; Migliaccio & Rathod LLP; Hecht Partners LLP; Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP · No. 510627/2026 | Settlement | False Advertising | Kings County Supreme Court, State of New York | 2026-11-06 | $15M |
| Applesource ↗ common fund · No. 18-MD-2827-EJD | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-11-06 | $250M |
| Southern Graphicssource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-11-06 | $750K | |
| Highland Health Systemssource ↗ common fund · ~84K members · ≈$7.78/member gross | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama | 2026-11-06 | $650K |
| ConnectOnCallsource ↗ common fund · ~900,000 members · up to $5,000 /member · No. 2:24-cv-08790 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Not specified | 2026-11-06 | $4.95M |
| Bestwaysource ↗ common fund · ~$75/member · No. 2:24-cv-02812-DMF | Settlement | Product Liability | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona | 2026-11-06 | $15M |
| Opal OS Corporationsource ↗ No. 3:26-cv-13227 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.source ↗ filed by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP · Judge Dana Makoto Sabraw · No. 3:26-cv-06317 · 18:2511 Wiretapping - Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Mistras Group, Inc.source ↗ filed by Pilot Law, P.C. · Judge Todd Wallace Robinson · No. 3:26-cv-06333 · 38:4301 Uniformed Srvs. Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (purpose) · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Direct Marketing Ventures, LLCsource ↗ filed by Usher Law Group P.C. · No. 1:26-cv-09707 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Lovehoney LLCsource ↗ filed by Usher Law Group P.C. · No. 1:26-cv-09713 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Sharkninja Operating LLCsource ↗ filed by Usher Law Group P.C. · No. 1:26-cv-09718 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Swarovski Digital Business USA Inc.source ↗ filed by Usher Law Group P.C. · No. 1:26-cv-09720 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc.source ↗ filed by Usher Law Group P.C. · No. 1:26-cv-09722 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Loro Piana & C. Inc.source ↗ filed by The Weitz Law Firm, P.A. · No. 1:26-cv-09733 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Verizon Wireless, Inc.source ↗ filed by Dave Maxfield, Attorney, LLC · Judge Mary Geiger Lewis · No. 3:26-cv-05521 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | D.S.C. | 2026-11-05 | |
| The Perfect Child LLCsource ↗ Judge Clay H. Kaminsky · No. 1:26-cv-07146 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | E.D.N.Y | 2026-11-05 | |
| Bodum USA, Inc.source ↗ filed by Ben Travis Law, APC · Judge Denise Cote · No. 1:26-cv-09731 · 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Landmark Construction Company, Inc.source ↗ filed by Wigger Law Firm · Judge Richard Mark Gergel · No. 2:26-cv-05480 · 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims split in comparables: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth survived disclosure/confidentiality theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on exemption/undue-delay grounds. Landmark is a small regional contractor, not a tech platform, so class size and tracking-tech exposure are far smaller than mega-settlement comparables. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - shows wiretap/disclosure claims via tracking tech can survive dismissal even for non-tech defendants with websites. Main risk: Dismissal risk mirrors Santoro v. Tower Health, where undue delay/pleading deficiencies on tracking-tech disclosure claims led to dismissal with prejudice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $8K–$1.50M No prior record for this defendant; comparables are mostly large tech-platform tracking-pixel cases, poor fit for a small construction firm — figures are highly speculative. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| HOMECENTRIS PENNSYLVANIA, LLCsource ↗ filed by HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-08491 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel health-privacy claims, directly binding in E.D. Pa.; but Rand v. Eyemart Express shows Wiretap Act claims specifically (vs. generic privacy torts) can survive when tied to disclosure of individually identifiable health info. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) — same circuit, dismissed nearly identical pixel-based health-privacy claims, raising dismissal risk here Main risk: Third Circuit precedent (Santoro) dismissing analogous Meta Pixel/health-data claims could doom case at pleading stage in same circuit Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $31K–$1.12M Small, regional defendant with no comparable prior settlements; wiretap theory specifics (pixel vs. session-replay) unconfirmed, driving wide uncertainty. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Michigan State Universitysource ↗ filed by Miller Law Firm (Rochester) · No. 1:26-cv-03175 · Civil Miscellaneous Case · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth allowed similar disclosure-based claims to survive, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on exemption/pleading grounds. MSU's wiretap theory likely hinges on whether tracking tech (e.g., Meta Pixel-style) claims are pled with specific disclosure facts. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) — survived because plaintiffs specifically pled disclosure of identifiable data via tracking pixel without consent, a likely parallel to MSU's facts. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead actionable disclosure/consent facts, as in Tower Health and Nuance where exemptions or pleading deficiencies proved fatal. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$1.75M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; MSU-specific facts, data type, and class scope unknown, so estimates are highly uncertain. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | W.D. Mich. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Northwell Healthsource ↗ No. 2:26-cv-07147 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D.N.Y | 2026-11-05 | |
| TG Administration LLCsource ↗ filed by Richard Celler Legal PA · No. 2:26-cv-03008 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Courts split sharply on tracking-tech/wiretap theories: Eyemart Express and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading-stage motions on similar disclosure/consent theories, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on comparable facts. Outcome is highly fact-dependent on consent language and whether data qualifies as protected health/biometric info. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - survived because plaintiffs plausibly alleged disclosure of individually identifiable data via tracking pixel without consent, a close factual analog. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or lack of interception/consent grounds, as in Nuance (GLBA exemption) and Tower Health (pleading deficiencies) Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1M–$25M Defendant identity and class size highly uncertain from noisy web signals; estimate is speculative and should be revised once actual defendant business/data scope is confirmed · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Capsule Corporationsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09724 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| CDT Equity Incsource ↗ Judge James Wesley Hendrix · No. 1:26-cv-00577 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Tex. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Minasource ↗ No. 6:26-cv-02599 · 42:1983 Civil Rights Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Bernsteinsource ↗ Judge Christine M. Gravelle · No. 26-01615 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | Bankr. D.N.J. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Avellansource ↗ No. 7:26-cv-00446 · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | W.D. Tex. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Pinewood Capital Llcsource ↗ No. 2:26-cv-13001 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Boscov's Department Store, LLCsource ↗ Judge Erica Grosjean · No. 1:26-cv-09130 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Roman Health Ventures, Inc.source ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09730 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Ford Motor Companysource ↗ filed by Duck Law Firm · Judge Shelly Deckert Dick · No. 3:26-cv-01250 · 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Wiretap/privacy claims split in recent rulings: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) revived Wiretap Act claims over tracking-tech data disclosure, while Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel/health-data claims. Outcome likely turns on specificity of data-sharing allegations and consent facts. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express — 5th Cir. revived Wiretap Act claims for undisclosed data sharing via tracking tech, closest factual analog to Ford's alleged data practices. Main risk: Dismissal on consent/causation grounds as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where similar pixel/tracking claims were dismissed with prejudice after repeated pleading failures. This defendant: Ford already faces a parallel Firmin v. Ford Motor Company (Privacy & Wiretap) filing, suggesting recurring exposure on this theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.50M–$60M Small, heterogeneous comparable set (n=2 realized per-member data) and early-stage filing make this a rough directional estimate, not a precise forecast. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. La. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| St Management Group, Inc.source ↗ filed by Law Offices of Jared M. Lefkowitz · No. 1:26-cv-09692 · 26:7434 IRS: Civil Damages for Fraudulent Filing of Information · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims show split outcomes: Rand v. Eyemart and Bayhealth survived on data-sharing/confidentiality theories, while Tower Health and Cisneros were dismissed on causation/exemption grounds. Outcome likely turns on specificity of alleged disclosure mechanism and identifiability of data shared. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - survived because plaintiffs specifically pled individually identifiable health info disclosed via tracking pixel without consent, a likely template claim here. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead individually identifiable disclosure or lack of duty, as in Tower Health and Cisneros (statutory exemption/causation defects) Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $25K–$3.62M Defendant identity is ambiguous across web sources (multiple similarly-named entities); class size and settlement capacity are speculative absent confirmed business scale or prior litigation history. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICESsource ↗ No. 2:26-cv-08488 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-05 |
Subscribers export any search as CSV or pull it through the JSON API — defendant, court, practice area, settlement value and per-member comps included.