Consumer-Law Records

ADA claims survived in Holmes v. Bax and Price v. Diab, but both turned on fee-shifting/injunctive nuances rather than damages; no on-point web-accessibility ruling exists for a retailer like Empava.

ADA accessibility rulings split: Price v. Diab and Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA liability/injunctive relief, but Burton shows fee-shifting and mootness issues can unravel remedies. No settlement or verdict data exists for this specific theory to anchor value.

Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment, showing courts sustain well-pled ADA accessibility claims, while Price v. Diab and Burton show fee/mootness issues often complicate recovery post-injunction. No direct accessibility-specific ruling on this defendant exists.

Comparables are mostly off-theory (ECOA, HOA, SNAP) but show courts often affirm ADA liability once established, as in Holmes v. Bax; Price v. Diab confirms ADA default judgments and injunctive relief are readily upheld, though fee awards can be contested.

Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on tracking/data-collection theories, while Integris was dismissed on procedural (removal) grounds with underlying privacy claims left unclear. No wiretap-specific ruling squarely favors either side, so outcome is fact-dependent on GoDaddy's data practices.

Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth allowed a confidentiality claim over tracking tech to survive while Integris saw federal claims dismissed and state privacy claims left unclear; Gunnar Optiks shows courts often decline dismissal on pleadings for tracking/BIPA-type theories, remanding for factual development.

Doe v. Bayhealth found a viable confidentiality claim for health-data tracking tech, and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks was twice vacated/remanded rather than dismissed outright, showing courts reluctant to kill tracking-tech claims at pleadings. But Integris Health left state privacy claims 'unclear' and BI's own six parallel filings are all still at filing stage with no rulings yet.

Comparable privacy/wiretap-adjacent rulings split: BIPA claims in Clements survived pleading stage on similar tracking-tech theories, and Bayhealth confidentiality claims survived, but Integris state privacy claims remain unclear and LabCorp shows courts scrutinizing statutory elements closely.

Bayhealth found a duty of confidentiality survives for healthcare-adjacent tracking claims, while Integris and Gunnar Optiks show similar privacy/tracking suits often survive MTD on unresolved factual questions, suggesting BI's claim likely proceeds past pleading stage.

Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth allowed a breach-of-confidentiality claim to survive on tracking-technology facts, while Integris's parallel state privacy claims were left unclear on remand. Fractyl is a small medtech firm, so exposure likely tracks the healthcare-tracking cases rather than Meta/Google-scale settlements.

Tracking-technology privacy claims show split outcomes: Doe v. Bayhealth survived MTD on breach of confidentiality via tracking tech, while Gunnar Optiks (BIPA) was remanded on factual questions rather than resolved. Integris Health shows analogous third-party data-sharing claims left 'unclear', signaling courts are cautious but not dismissive.