← 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.
4,095 records · $110.77B in settlements
| Defendant / matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value / comps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.source ↗ Judge John Leonard Badalamenti · No. 8:26-cv-02518 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | |
| LVNV FUNDING, LLCsource ↗ filed by LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS S SCHWARTZ · No. 2:26-cv-06444 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Penningsource ↗ Judge Shalina D. Kumar · No. 2:26-cv-13091 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → | Filing | False Advertising | E.D. Mich. | 2026-08-28 | |
| Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospitalsource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-08-28 | ||
| Community Dental Caresource ↗ | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | 2026-08-28 | $5K | |
| State Farmsource ↗ common fund · up to 21% of premiums paid (minimum limits) or up to 13% of premiums paid (non-minimum limits) /member · class counsel: Bailey & Glasser LLP, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand, PLLC · defense: Barber Munson, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Alston & Bird LLP · No. 18-CV-00328-KWR-SCY · view case timeline → | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | District Court, New Mexico | 2026-08-28 | $15.58M |
| Google and YouTubesource ↗ common fund · ~1,000,000 members · $20 to $30 /member · No. 5:19-cv-07016 · view case timeline → | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose) | 2026-08-28 | $7.50M |
| YouTube TVsource ↗ | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | California | 2026-08-28 | |
| Volkswagensource ↗ | Settlement | Product Liability | 2026-08-28 | ||
| Bradford-Scott Datasource ↗ common fund · No. 1:24-CV-00117-HAB-ALT | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for Northern District of Indiana | 2026-08-28 | $2.39M |
| Essen Medical Associatessource ↗ common fund | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | Not specified | 2026-08-28 | $4M |
| Fidelity Investmentsource ↗ common fund · No. 1:24-CV-12601-LTS | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | 2026-08-28 | $2.50M |
| Nationwidesource ↗ common fund · ~$18/member · No. 2022-022187-CA-01 | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida | 2026-08-28 | $1.40M |
| Targetsource ↗ common fund · ~$1,712/member · No. 24-2-25091-3 SEA | Settlement | False Advertising | Seattle (24-2-25091-3 SEA) | 2026-08-28 | $2.23M |
| Colgate-Palmolivesource ↗ common fund · up to average manufacturer's suggested retail price for one Class Product without proof of purchase, or full refund up to three Class Products with proof of purchase /member · No. 2:25-cv-06996-JMW | Settlement | False Advertising | United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York | 2026-08-28 | $2.90M |
| LastPasssource ↗ common fund · ~$25/member · No. 1:22-cv-12047-PBS | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | 2026-08-28 | $8.20M |
| Nelnetsource ↗ common fund · No. 4:22-cv-3191 | Settlement | Data Breach & Security | U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska | 2026-08-28 | $10M |
| Nutramax Laboratoriessource ↗ common fund · ~$150/member · No. 5:19-CV-00835-FMO-SP · view case timeline → | Settlement | False Advertising | Central District of California | 2026-08-28 | $11.50M |
| SiriusXMsource ↗ common fund · TBD /member · No. 2:22-cv-2261-CSB-EIL | Settlement | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division | 2026-08-28 | $28M |
| Wells Fargosource ↗ common fund · ~102K members · ≈$323.53/member gross · class counsel: Zolna Swetland, LLC, Andrus Anderson LLP · defense: Delahunty & Nash LLP, Milberg, PLLC, King & Spalding LLP, King & Spalding · No. 1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN · view case timeline → | Settlement | Fees & Auto-Renewal | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-28 | $33M |
| Kaiser Permanentesource ↗ common fund · ~13.1M members · ~$30/member · view case timeline → | Settlement | Privacy & Wiretap | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | 2026-08-28 | $47.50M |
| DG Auto Sales, LLC and Donavin Greenbergsource ↗ The court affirmed summary judgment for DG Auto because pro se appellant Crockett failed to cite supporting summary-judgment evidence, failed to challenge all grounds rai · view case timeline → | Opinion | State statutes — FL / TX / GA | Tex. App.-Austin | 2026-08-27 | Affirmed |
| WellPoint Texas, Inc.source ↗ No. 4:26-cv-07185 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Tex. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Event Lab LLCsource ↗ No. 8:26-cv-02432 · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-08-27 | |
| DAMI REALTY LLCsource ↗ filed by Anthony J. Perez Law Group, PLLC · Judge Jacqueline Becerra · No. 1:26-cv-25888 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-27 | |
| EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLCsource ↗ filed by Garibian Law Offices PC · Judge Antonio M. Pozos · No. 2:26-cv-06394 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 | |
| CAPITAL ONE, N.A.source ↗ filed by DANVILLE, PA 17821 · No. 2:26-cv-06405 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Equifax Information Services, LLC (MAG+)source ↗ Judge Emily Coody Marks · No. 2:26-cv-00679 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | M.D. Ala. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Lyft, Inc.source ↗ The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs' ADA/NYSHRL claims because plaintiffs bore the burden of proving their proposed modifications would be effective and f · view case timeline → | Opinion | ADA / Accessibility | 2d Cir. | 2026-08-27 | affirmed |
| CBS Broadcasting, Inc.source ↗ Judge Jack Zouhary · No. 3:26-cv-02077 · 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ohio | 2026-08-27 | |
| Datadog, Inc.source ↗ filed by Marjorie Mesidor Attorney at Law · No. 1:26-cv-07318 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims tied to tracking tech show split outcomes: Bayhealth and the second Gunnar Optiks ruling let claims survive on factual questions, while Integris and the first Gunnar ruling left issues unclear pending discovery. Datadog's case likely turns on similar fact-intensive consent/interception questions under wiretap statutes. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confirms tracking-technology disclosure claims can survive MTD when a duty of confidentiality or consent issue is plausibly pled, mirroring Datadog's data-capture role. Main risk: Courts may find Datadog acted merely as a backend processor (like Integris' EHR role), lacking direct 'interception' or duty to class members, risking dismissal. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20M–$350M Small comparable sample, uncertain class definition, and Datadog's B2B infrastructure role make class size and liability theory highly speculative. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| TARGET CORP.source ↗ filed by Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC · Judge Karen Spencer Marston · No. 2:26-cv-06391 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived MTD on privacy/tracking-tech theories, while Integris saw removal rejected and underlying privacy claims left unclear. Fact-intensive defenses (consent, HIPAA-style exclusions) frequently push cases past pleadings but leave outcome uncertain. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confidentiality claim from tracking tech survived MTD, closest factual analog to retailer web-tracking/wiretap theory. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds or removal maneuvering, as seen in Integris where federal officer removal failed but underlying merits remained unresolved. This defendant: Target has two prior Privacy & Wiretap filings (Cavallaro, Louis), suggesting recurring exposure on tracking-technology claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$240M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough estimates absent case-specific facts on tracking mechanism or opt-in data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Vizio, Inc.source ↗ No. 8:26-cv-02443 · 35:271 Patent Infringement · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | C.D. Cal. | 2026-08-27 | |
| 33 Mile Radius LLCsource ↗ Judge Joseph Dawson III · No. 2:26-cv-03685 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D.S.C. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Fidelity Lifesource ↗ No. 4:26-cv-07179 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | S.D. Tex. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Trapananda Seafarms LLCsource ↗ filed by Pearson Warshaw, LLP · Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings · No. 1:26-cv-10335 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on privacy/BIPA-type theories, while Integris and LabCorp saw claims dismissed or left unclear at the pleading stage. Small defendant size limits confidence in extrapolating from Big Tech settlement patterns. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks - shows wiretap/biometric privacy claims often survive 12(b)(6) when factual questions about data collection remain unresolved. Main risk: Small, low-web-presence defendant may lack the data infrastructure/scale that made Integris and LabCorp-style dismissals or narrow rulings likely on causation/duty grounds. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $6K–$2.50M Tiny defendant with sparse public data; class size and per-member figures are highly speculative given no prior litigation record and limited comparables at this scale. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ill. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Mediaocean, LLCsource ↗ No. 1:26-cv-07302 · 18:2511 Wiretapping - Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.source ↗ No. 1:26-cv-00605 · 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment · view case timeline → | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.R.I. | 2026-08-27 | |
| Academy, Ltd d/b/a Academy Sport + Outdoorssource ↗ filed by EKSM, LLP · No. 4:26-cv-07181 · 18:2511 Wiretapping · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks (on remand) let claims survive tracking-based privacy theories, while Integris Health saw state privacy claims left 'unclear' after removal fight. No wiretap-specific ruling directly mirrors Academy's retail-tracking fact pattern, so outcome is fact-dependent on tracking-tech consent issues. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because provider-like duty existed via tracking tech disclosure, showing courts will let privacy claims proceed past MTD when third-party data sharing is alleged. Main risk: Session-replay/pixel wiretap claims can be dismissed if court finds no 'contents' interception or valid consent, as suggested by unresolved Integris and LabCorp rulings. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$105M No wiretap-specific prior ruling against Academy; class size and per-member figures are extrapolated, not directly evidenced. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Tex. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |
| Globe Life Inc.source ↗ filed by Dapeer Law, P.A. · No. 2:26-cv-02441 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Bayhealth survived a confidentiality claim via tracking tech, and Gunnar Optiks was vacated for further factual development, suggesting privacy/wiretap claims often survive early dismissal; but Integris shows state-law tracking claims can remain unclear pending removal disputes, adding uncertainty for Globe Life's M.D. Fla. suit. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confirms tracking-technology disclosure claims can survive MTD when a duty of confidentiality is plausibly alleged, closely analogous to Globe Life's likely web/session-tracking theory. Main risk: Claims could stall on jurisdictional/removal or statutory-interpretation grounds, as seen in Integris (removal dismissed, state claims left unclear). This defendant: Globe Life previously settled a data breach/security claim for $3.4M, indicating some willingness to resolve privacy claims rather than litigate to trial. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $12.50M–$105M Small comparable sample, mixed procedural postures, and uncertain class definition (customers vs. website visitors) limit precision; true class size and per-member recovery could vary substantially. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$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.