A securities class action filed against ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers on June 25, 2026, highlights what may be the next phase of AI-related securities litigation. Unlike many earlier AI-related lawsuits, which alleged that companies overstated their AI capabilities, the Zoom complaint alleges that the company accurately described its AI initiatives but failed to disclose that AI was simultaneously disrupting its legacy business model.
If this theory gains traction, it could represent another evolution in AI-related securities litigation: from alleged AI washing to alleged underdisclosure of AI-related business risks.
The Zoom SCA
The lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Zoom securities between November 3, 2025, and May 11, 2026, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against ZoomInfo, its Chief Executive Officer Henry Schuck, and its Chief Financial Officer Graham O’Brien (Zoom SCA).
According to the complaint, throughout the class period defendants repeatedly emphasized that Zoom was evolving into an AI-powered go-to-market platform built around proprietary data assets, Copilot, GTM Studio, GTM Workspace, and other AI-enabled products. Executives allegedly represented that these products would provide significant long-term business benefits, including improved customer retention and revenue growth.
The complaint points to numerous public statements describing ZoomInfo as an AI leader whose proprietary data platform positioned the company to benefit from enterprise AI adoption.
Of note, the plaintiffs do not contend that these AI products failed to exist or that the company fabricated its AI initiatives. Instead, they allege that management omitted material information regarding the effect AI was having on Zoom’s legacy business. Specifically, the complaint alleges that customers increasingly were moving away from traditional seat-based subscription models toward consumption-based pricing and internally developed AI-driven sales tools.
According to the complaint, these changes were contributing to weakening customer retention, slowing growth in the company’s legacy software business, and increasing competitive pressures; developments that allegedly rendered defendants’ optimistic statements materially misleading.
On May 12, 2026, Zoom reported first-quarter financial results, which lowered its full-year guidance, acknowledged slowing growth, and discussed customer migration toward consumption-based models. According to the complaint, following the announcement, the company’s share price fell approximately 33%.
Discussion
From a D&O perspective, the significance of the Zoom complaint lies less in the alleged misstatements themselves than in what they suggest about the continuing evolution of AI-related securities litigation.
As readers of this blog know, the first generation of AI-related securities suits generally involved allegations of “AI washing,” which involved claims that companies overstated the sophistication or commercial significance of their AI capabilities. The Zoom complaint alleges something different. The plaintiffs do not contend that Zoom lacked AI products or fabricated its AI initiatives. Instead, they allege that the company failed to disclose that AI was simultaneously disrupting its existing subscription-based business.
In that respect, Zoom appears to fit into an emerging category of AI litigation focused less on whether AI exists and more on whether companies adequately disclosed AI’s impact on their underlying business model.
The Reddit securities lawsuit (Reddit SCA) reflects a similar theme. Rather than alleging that Reddit overstated its AI capabilities, the shareholder plaintiffs in the Reddit SCA on whether the company adequately disclosed how AI-related developments could affect its monetization strategy and long-term business model. Viewed together, the Reddit and Zoom cases suggest plaintiffs increasingly are focusing on AI-driven business transition risks rather than AI promotion alone.
Accordingly, as companies accelerate the integration of AI into core business functions, securities plaintiffs could begin to focus on whether management has adequately disclosed the attendant risks of AI adoption. For D&O underwriters, this trend underscores the growing importance of evaluating corporate AI-related disclosures, especially with respect to the anticipated impact to customer base and revenue, which may now be subject to heightened scrutiny.
The evolution of these cases carries important implications for boards and D&O insurers alike. As AI becomes embedded throughout business operations, oversight extends beyond technology deployment to understanding how AI may affect customer behavior, pricing models, revenue mix, competitive positioning, and financial forecasts. At the same time, underwriters increasingly may evaluate not only whether companies are investing in AI but also whether disclosure controls adequately address AI-related business risks.
Regardless of the outcome of the Zoom litigation, one thing is already clear: AI-related securities litigation continues to be a significant driver of securities class action filings. By our count, the Zoom SCA represents the fourteenth AI-related securities class action lawsuit filed in 2026, meaning that AI-related cases make up more than ten percent of all securities class action lawsuits filed this year.
By comparison, there were fourteen AI-related securities suits during all of 2025, representing roughly seven percent of that year’s filings. At the current pace, AI-related litigation appears likely to become one of the defining contributors to the overall securities litigation landscape in 2026.