← 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCsource ↗ Judge Kathryn A. Starnella · No. 1:26-cv-05873 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Colo. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Western Razor LLCsource ↗ filed by Gottlieb & Associates · No. 1:26-cv-02562 · 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$780K ▾Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir., same circuit as W.D.N.Y.) shows plaintiffs must prove modification effectiveness, often fatal to ADA web-access claims; but Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive summary judgment when well-pled. Comparable settlements $65K–$780K median $365K · n=4 The Container Stor $780K · Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — controlling circuit precedent requiring plaintiff to prove reasonableness, a high bar for small e-commerce ADA suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead effective/reasonable accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft; small company may lack resources to litigate and settle cheaply or fold quickly Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3K–$150K No direct ADA website-accessibility settlement data for comparably small defendants; estimate relies on analogy and may overstate class size. · grounded in 9 rulings, 4 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | W.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-05 | $65K–$780K comparable settlements |
| AMC THEATRES OF NEW JERSEY, INC.source ↗ No. 3:26-cv-14417 · 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | D.N.J. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Procollect, Inc.source ↗ filed by Ramos Law · Judge Kathryn A. Starnella · No. 1:26-cv-05852 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.45M–$100M ▾Colorado FDCPA precedent (Wright v. Portfolio Recovery) favors plaintiffs on attachment/ownership defects, but Minano v. DLJ shows FCRA furnisher claims often dismissed for lack of private right of action or insufficient pleading. Comparable settlements $2.45M–$100M median $7.86M · n=10 Equifax $100M · Equifax $30M · Equifax Informatio $30M Per member (realized): ~$176 median · $25–$250 (n=4) Comparable verdict: TransUnion $60M · TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (Colo.) - same jurisdiction/theory, reversed in plaintiff's favor on FDCPA attachment compliance, signaling Colorado courts scrutinize collector documentation. Main risk: FCRA claims against collectors/furnishers frequently dismissed for lacking private right of action or failing concrete-injury pleading, as in Minano and Soul Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $25K–$750K Small, heterogeneous comparable set; no prior ProCollect litigation history; class size is speculative absent actual filing/certification data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | D. Colo. | 2026-11-05 | $2.45M–$100M comparable settlements |
| BCG Equities LLCsource ↗ Judge Stephen C. Dries · No. 2:26-cv-02064 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Wis. | 2026-11-05 | |
| General Mills, Inc.source ↗ filed by Gucovschi Law Firm, PLLC · No. 3:26-cv-13208 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | N.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | |
| Hampton Regional Medical Centersource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-11-05 | ||
| Avis Budget Group, Inc.source ↗ common fund · ~299,066 members · up to $5,000 plus a pro rata cash payment /member · No. 2:24-cv-09243 | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | 2026-11-05 | $45M | |
| Valve Corporation, Ubisoft, Capcom, Electronic Arts, Square Enix, and otherssource ↗ | Filing | State-court filings (notable) | San Mateo County Superior Court | 2026-11-05 | |
| Googlesource ↗ common fund · No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division | 2026-11-05 | $700M |
| Hollis Cobb Associates, LLCsource ↗ Judge Eleanor Louise Ross · No. 1:26-cv-06739 · 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | N.D. Ga. | 2026-11-05 | |
| High 5 Gamessource ↗ common fund · Varies /member · No. 3:18-cv-05275 | Settlement | Other | Washington | 2026-11-05 | $12M |
| Antigo Constructionsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-11-05 | ||
| PARSsource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-11-05 | $750K | |
| Aramark Capital One Arenasource ↗ common fund · Equal share of $4.5M net fund — amount varies based on number of valid claims filed /member · No. 2025-CAB-007444 | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Superior Court of the District of Columbia | 2026-11-05 | $4.50M |
| Teleflorasource ↗ common fund · ~23,844 members · ~$251/member · No. 2026-012979-CA-01 | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | 2026-11-05 | $6M | |
| Costa Del Marsource ↗ common fund · ~365,327 members · Pro rata payment for qualifying repair /member · class counsel: Holland & Knight LLP · defense: McGuireWoods LLP, McGuire Woods, LLP-Raleigh · No. 6:19-cv-1751 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Other | U.S. District Court | 2026-11-05 | $23.90M |
| Grubhubsource ↗ common fund · $25 and up (proportional to miles driven) /member · No. 3:15-cv-05128 JSC | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | N.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | $5M |
| Fandangosource ↗ common fund · ~$3/member · No. 25CU046749N | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego | 2026-11-05 | $9.40M |
| American Express Companysource ↗ | Verdict | False Advertising | Eastern District of New York | 2026-11-05 | $12.50M |
| Dish Network, LLCsource ↗ | Verdict | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | 2026-11-05 | $61M |
| Sprouts Farmers Marketsource ↗ common fund · TBD /member · class counsel: Sourthern California Attorneys, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC · defense: Littler Mendelson, P.C., Dorsey and Whitney LLP · No. 22STCV26572 · view case timeline → | Settlement | False Advertising | Los Angeles County Superior Court | 2026-11-05 | $5M |
| Grubhub Inc.source ↗ common fund · $25 and up (proportional to miles driven) /member · No. 3:15-cv-05128 JSC · view case timeline → | Settlement | False Advertising | N.D. Cal. | 2026-11-05 | $5M |
| Google LLCsource ↗ common fund · No. 18-CV-328915 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Santa Clara County Superior Court | 2026-11-05 | $5M |
| Premier Nutrition Corporationsource ↗ common fund · ~$20/member · class counsel: Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP, Altair Law · defense: Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Venable LLP, Duane Morris LLP · No. 1:17-cv-05987 · view case timeline → | Settlement | False Advertising | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | 2026-11-05 | $90M |
| Tindersource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | Los Angeles County Superior Court | 2026-11-05 | $60.50M |
| Tropical Emerald, LLCsource ↗ The Appellate Division held that prior federal dismissal of the plaintiff's ADA claim (on 'readily achievable' grounds) did not collaterally estop the NYSHRL and NYCHRL c · view case timeline → | Opinion | ADA / Accessibility | N.Y. App. Div. | 2026-11-04 | reversed; MTD denied |
| Revolve Group, Inc.source ↗ filed by Hadsell Stormer Renick and Dai LLP · No. 2:26-cv-12924 · Civil Miscellaneous Case · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Contract / Warranty | C.D. Cal. | 2026-11-04 | |
| The Coca-Cola Companysource ↗ filed by Laukaitis Law LLC · Judge Iain D. Johnston · No. 3:26-cv-50534 · 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Contract / Warranty | N.D. Ill. | 2026-11-04 | |
| Radius Global Solutions, LLCsource ↗ Judge Thomas J. Whelan · No. 3:26-cv-06308 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Cal. | 2026-11-04 | |
| Hamilton Health Care System, Inc.source ↗ filed by Don Bivens, PLLC · Judge William M. Ray II · No. 4:26-cv-00338 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking privacy claims split evenly in comparables: Doe v. Bayhealth and Rand v. Eyemart survived MTD, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on exemption/standing grounds. Outcome likely turns on specific tracking technology and consent language, not yet clear here. 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 Meta Pixel disclosure of IIHI was adequately pled, closely mirrors likely Hamilton facts if pixel-based. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of actionable disclosure or exemption, as in Santoro v. Tower Health (Meta Pixel claim dismissed with prejudice) and Nuance (statutory exemption) Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $200K–$4M Small, ambiguous web signals on true class size/defendant scale; realized per-member benchmark based on only 2 data points limits precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ga. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Hera Entertainment, LLCsource ↗ filed by The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A. · No. 2:26-cv-02989 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$780K ▾ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations and Price v. Diab allowed fee-shifting post-default. Outcome likely turns on specificity of alleged barrier and remedy sought. Comparable settlements $65K–$780K median $365K · n=4 The Container Stor $780K · Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — shows courts require plaintiffs to prove proposed accommodation is effective, a common dismissal ground in ADA accessibility suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, provably effective accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5K–$400K Defendant identity and size highly uncertain from web signals; estimate assumes typical single/small-plaintiff ADA Title III accessibility suit, not certified class. · grounded in 9 rulings, 4 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-04 | $65K–$780K comparable settlements |
| A & M Properties of The GulfCoast Incsource ↗ filed by The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A. · No. 2:26-cv-02991 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$780K ▾Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA access claims can be dismissed if plaintiff fails to prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirms ADA claims can survive at summary judgment; outcome is fact-dependent on barrier specificity. Comparable settlements $65K–$780K median $365K · n=4 The Container Stor $780K · Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K Key precedent: Thurn v. A&M Properties of the Gulfcoast Inc — same defendant, same theory, signals repeat ADA exposure and possible serial-filer pattern. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show concrete, imminent barrier or standing deficiency, as in Lowell v. Lyft affirmance This defendant: Second ADA accessibility suit against this defendant (Thurn case) suggests recurring compliance issues or repeat-plaintiff targeting. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$112K Small sample, no direct verdicts, and settlement comparables involve much larger defendants, limiting precision. · grounded in 9 rulings, 4 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-04 | $65K–$780K comparable settlements |
| The Next Chapter NY LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-09684 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-04 | |
| T Auto Group Incsource ↗ filed by Law Office of Alexander Schachtel · Judge Robert M. Levy · No. 1:26-cv-07115 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | E.D.N.Y | 2026-11-04 | |
| Wholesome Yum Brands, LLCsource ↗ filed by KAMBERLAW, LLC · No. 7:26-cv-09658 · 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-11-04 | |
| Uber Technologiessource ↗ The court held plaintiffs sought public injunctive relief under McGill, and because the arbitration agreement's severance clause was ambiguous, it must be construed again · view case timeline → | Opinion | False Advertising | Cal. Ct. App. | 2026-11-04 | affirmed |
| The Kroger Co.source ↗ filed by Law Offices of Dean T. Yeotis · Judge Denise Page Hood · No. 2:26-cv-14225 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking-tech privacy claims split in recent rulings: Rand v. Eyemart and Bayhealth survived similar disclosure theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros were dismissed on statutory exemptions or pleading grounds. Kroger's scale invites certification but outcome hinges on specific tracking mechanism pled. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - survived because plaintiffs pled concrete IIHI disclosure via Meta Pixel without consent, a template Kroger plaintiffs likely mirror. Main risk: Dismissal like Santoro v. Tower Health if complaint fails to plead individualized disclosure or relies on generic pixel allegations without specificity. This defendant: Kroger previously settled a $17M auto-renewal/fees case, showing willingness to settle but no prior privacy-specific settlement benchmark. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $75M–$500M Small comparable set, wide class-size uncertainty, and realized per-member figure based on only n=2 settlements limit precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mich. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| NUTRISYSTEM, INC.source ↗ filed by KOLLER LAW PC · No. 2:26-cv-08461 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Tower Health (3rd Cir., same circuit as E.D. Pa.) dismissed nearly identical Meta Pixel/health-data disclosure claims, while Eyemart Express and Bayhealth allowed similar tracking-tech privacy claims to survive. Outcome likely turns on pleading specificity re: individually identifiable health information disclosure. 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 (3rd Cir.) — binding circuit precedent dismissing Meta Pixel health-data privacy claims, directly on point for E.D. Pa. court. Main risk: 3rd Circuit precedent (Tower Health) dismissing nearly identical pixel-tracking health-privacy claims could control in E.D. Pa. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.16M–$23.20M Small/uncertain precedent sample, no confirmed class size or defendant-specific settlement data; estimate highly speculative. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| GIS BENEFITS, INC.source ↗ filed by KOLLER LAW PC · No. 2:26-cv-08458 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Wiretap/pixel-style privacy claims show split outcomes: Eyemart Express and Bayhealth survived on IIHI disclosure theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice and Nuance's biometric claim failed on exemption grounds. Outcome likely turns on specificity of data disclosed and whether GIS qualifies for any statutory exemption. 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: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - closely analogous Wiretap Act/IIHI disclosure claim via tracking pixel that survived reversal of dismissal, supporting plausibility of similar claims against GIS. Main risk: Dismissal under Tower Health/Nuance reasoning if GIS data-sharing is deemed non-identifiable or falls under a statutory carve-out (e.g., GLBA/HIPAA-adjacent exemption). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $50K–$6.20M Small sample size, unclear actual class size/data flows for GIS, and no prior litigation history on this defendant limit precision significantly. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-04 | $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.