← 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCNAsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Waste Connectionssource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Highland Healthsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | $5K | |
| EFS Advisorssource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | $850K | |
| SitusAMCsource ↗ common fund · ~663K members · ~$75/member · class counsel: Federman & Sherwood, Hausfeld LLP, Milberg, PLLC, Emery Reddy, PC · defense: Alston & Bird LLP, Alston & Bird, Sidley Austin LLP, Sidley Austin LLP (NY) · No. 1:25-cv-09748 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | 2026-09-08 | $5.30M |
| Calverton Park Towingsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-09-08 | $465K | |
| STIIIZY, Inc.source ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | $2.95M | |
| American Income Life Insurance, Globe Lifesource ↗ ~49,695 members · Pro rata payment /member · No. 1:23-cv-01420-JPH-MG | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Not specified | 2026-09-08 | $3.40M |
| Washington Nationalssource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | D.C. | 2026-09-08 | |
| 23andMesource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Teslasource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Theranossource ↗ | Settlement | False Advertising | U.S. District Courts, Arizona District | 2026-09-08 | |
| Hyundai, Kiasource ↗ | Settlement | Product Liability | 2026-09-08 | ||
| E. Mishan & Sonssource ↗ | Settlement | False Advertising | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Sansone Groupsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Just4Veteranssource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-09-08 | $750K | |
| Tift Regional Health Systemsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | $1.20M | |
| Forbes Mediasource ↗ common fund · ~3,900,000 members · ~$110/member · class counsel: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Snell Wilmer LLP, Don Bivens, PLLC · defense: Holland & Knight LLP · No. 3:24-cv-09287-WHO · view case timeline → | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 2026-09-08 | $10M |
| Community Connectionssource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Aion Managementsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-09-08 | $1.10M | |
| Disney (YouTube TV / DirecTV Stream)source ↗ common fund · Pro rata cash payment based on length of subscription /member | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 2026-09-08 | $50M |
| Lucent Health Solutions, LLCsource ↗ common fund · No. 25C2679 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee | 2026-09-08 | $1.95M |
| Allina Health Systemsource ↗ common fund · class counsel: ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC · defense: FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. · No. 0:24-cv-03674-SRN-ECW | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota | 2026-09-08 | $12.50M |
| Parks Heritage Federal Credit Unionsource ↗ common fund · ~58K members · ≈$12.07/member gross · fees: not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund · class counsel: Mason LLP, The Lyon Firm, The Law Office of Jason C. Kuhlman, PLLC, Markovits Stock & DeMarco, LLC · defense: Baker & Hostetler, LLP · view case timeline → | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | District Court, S.D. Ohio | 2026-09-08 | |
| Christian Diorsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Dohman, Akerlund & Eddysource ↗ No. CI 24-3685 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska | 2026-09-08 | |
| SportsEdTVsource ↗ common fund · ~1,264 members · Pro rata share of net settlement fund (California residents receive twice the pro rata share) /member · No. 3:25-cv-04046-SK | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Not specified | 2026-09-08 | $500K |
| Concord Hospitalsource ↗ common fund · Pro rata distribution from $800,000 Settlement Fund after deductions /member · No. 217-2024-CV-00295 | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | Hillsborough Superior Court, Manchester, New Hampshire | 2026-09-08 | $800K |
| Circle Ksource ↗ ~$50/member · class counsel: Ilumi Law, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, Paronich Law PC · defense: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP - San Francisco, CA, Simmonds & Narita LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP - Irvine - Jamboree Rd., Greenberg Traurig LLP - Phoenix · No. 25EV012357 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Georgia | 2026-09-08 | |
| BALY LLC d/b/a FABRIKA BALY LLCsource ↗ filed by Costello & Silverman, LLC · No. 2:26-cv-06697 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims show inconsistent outcomes: Doe v. Bayhealth and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks survived motions to dismiss, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed, reflecting fact-specific, technology-dependent rulings. 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. — confirms tracking-tech disclosure claims can survive when a confidentiality duty is plausibly alleged, similar to Baly's likely web-tracking theory. Main risk: Dismissal risk mirrors Santoro v. Tower Health, where pixel/tracking claims failed for lack of individualized harm or consent theory clarity. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $30K–$1.75M Defendant identity is ambiguous (confused with unrelated Bally's Corp.); class size and per-member figures are highly speculative given sparse company-specific data. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-07 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Banner Life Insurance Companysource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-04181 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D. Colo. | 2026-09-07 | |
| Eddington Law Firm, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-04182 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D. Colo. | 2026-09-07 | |
| 1-800-Hansons, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-04183 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D. Colo. | 2026-09-07 | |
| Lyft Inc.source ↗ common fund · ~330K members · ≈$12.12/member gross · class counsel: HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, Stutheit Kalin LLC · No. 2:14-cv-00421 | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington | 2026-09-04 | $4M |
| Nuvei Corporationsource ↗ FTC enforcement | Settlement | False Advertising | 2026-09-04 | $4.85M | |
| OpenAI Inc.source ↗ filed by Klaris Law · No. 1:26-cv-07644 · 17:101 Copyright Infringement · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims show a split record: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims to survive and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Tower Health's near-identical Meta Pixel health-data claim was dismissed with prejudice and Cisneros fell to a statutory exemption. OpenAI's wiretap theory (interception/recording of chat data) is novel and untested at pleading stage in SDNY. 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 because provider owed a confidentiality duty over tracking-tech data sharing, closest analog to AI conversational data capture claims. Main risk: Dismissal on exemption/consent grounds, mirroring Cisneros (BIPA financial-institution exemption) and Tower Health (dismissed with prejudice for undue delay/insufficient disclosure theory). This defendant: Multiple concurrent privacy filings against OpenAI (Sullivan, state-court consumer actions) suggest emerging litigation pattern and possible consolidation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $100M–$600M Small comparable sample (n=2 realized payouts) and no direct AI-wiretap precedent; actual recovery likely capped by negotiated settlement fund, not linear per-member math. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Beta Bionics, Inc.source ↗ filed by Schall Brown and Schwartz LLP · No. 2:26-cv-09999 · 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable health-privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim and Gunnar's biometric claim survived, but Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim and Nuance's BIPA claim were dismissed on statutory exemptions. Beta Bionics' device-data wiretap theory faces similar exemption risk under health-data or financial-institution carve-outs. 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 because provider owed a confidentiality duty; supports plausibility of health-data privacy claims against device makers like Beta Bionics. Main risk: Dismissal via statutory exemption or lack of 'interception' under wiretap law, as in Nuance (GLBA exemption) and Tower Health (pixel dismissed). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $300K–$7.50M Small, niche defendant with no prior privacy litigation history; class size and per-member figures are rough extrapolations from device sales data, not confirmed user counts. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | C.D. Cal. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Amazon.com Services, LLCsource ↗ filed by Imler Law · No. 8:26-cv-02588 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on similar disclosure/consent theories, while Santoro and Nuance were dismissed on statutory-exemption or pleading grounds. The mismatch between the stated 'Privacy & Wiretap' theory and the actual class definition (illegal supplement sales) creates significant legal uncertainty about which framework governs. 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 Class (from complaint): All consumers who purchased dietary supplements from Amazon.com that were actually illegal, unapproved drugs during the relevant class period. Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because defendant owed a recognized duty of confidentiality, showing courts will sustain privacy claims tied to concrete disclosure duties. Main risk: Theory/class mismatch could trigger dismissal for failure to state a cognizable privacy/wiretap claim, similar to Santoro's dismissal on pleading deficiencies Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.70M–$47.25M Significant mismatch between 'Privacy & Wiretap' theory and supplement-fraud class definition undermines confident sizing; treat estimates as highly speculative. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| TransUnion LLCsource ↗ filed by Hays Cauley PC · Judge Joseph Dawson III · No. 4:26-cv-03889 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split roughly evenly—Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks allowed claims to proceed, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory/exclusion grounds. Wiretap-style claims (session replay/pixel tracking) face similar factual-issue hurdles that delayed dismissal in Gunnar Optiks. 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 because provider owed confidentiality duty; TransUnion's data-handling role may support analogous duty theory. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of statutory 'interception' or consent theory, as seen in Nuance (BIPA exemption) and Tower Health (undue delay/pixel claims dismissed) This defendant: TransUnion has repeated FCRA-adjacent litigation ($40M verdict, $2.5M settlement), showing willingness to litigate but occasional exposure Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$87M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixing BIPA/health-privacy/wiretap theories; true TransUnion-specific wiretap exposure unclear without complaint specifics. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Experian Information Solutions, Inc.source ↗ filed by Hays Cauley PC · Judge Joseph Dawson III · No. 4:26-cv-03895 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims tied to tracking tech show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on similar theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice. Experian's case likely turns on similar factual questions about consent and data-sharing scope not resolvable at pleading stage. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health - dismissed pixel-based privacy claim, showing courts scrutinize whether shared data was truly identifiable/unauthorized. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading-stage grounds (lack of individualized harm/consent showing) as in Tower Health, or narrow statutory exclusion arguments like BIPA's HIPAA carve-out in Nuance. This defendant: Experian's litigation history is dominated by FCRA/FDCPA filings, not privacy/wiretap—no clear pattern for this theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $4M–$500M Single new filing with no defendant-specific privacy precedent; class scope and legal theory specifics unknown, producing wide uncertainty bands. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-09-04 | $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.