WTW reported 53 AI-related securities class actions through H1 2025, with 12 filed in H1 2025 alone. WTW also reported a median settlement of $11.5M and an average of approximately $38.4M among settled matters. CEOs and CFOs can be named individually when challenged AI statements are tied to executive filings, earnings-call remarks, or separate control-person allegations.
In brief: WTW reported that the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse identified 53 AI-related securities class actions through H1 2025, including 12 in H1 2025. Cornerstone Research separately reported 16 AI-related filings in full-year 2025. A four-eyes-approved, version-controlled glossary of AI capability terms is one governance artifact that supports review before AI language reaches investor communications.
AI-themed securities complaints have moved from a niche litigation issue to a recurring D&O and board-governance question.
53 AI-related securities class actions filed since March 2020; 12 in the first half of 2025 alone; 33 of 53 target tech companies; 10 dismissed and 7 settled; median settlement $11.5 million; average settlement $38.4 million (or $13.3 million excluding one $189 million outlier). Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, as cited by WTW (November 2025).
AI plaintiffs can name officers when the pleadings tie alleged misstatements to executive filings, statements, or control-person theories. The June 2025 Tempus AI complaint, summarized by The D&O Diary, named Tempus AI, CEO Eric Lefkofsky, and CFO Jim Rodgers among the defendants.
DLA Piper's September 2025 review identifies recurring allegation patterns: companies allegedly overstated AI capabilities, concealed reliance on manual labor or third-party tools, or described AI as driving revenue or demand when plaintiffs alleged it was not. Those theories matter most for executives when the challenged words are pleaded as statements over which the executive had ultimate authority, or when a separate control-person theory is pleaded.
A securities class action naming the CEO is a named-individual legal event, but liability and coverage depend on pleadings, scienter, loss causation, policy language, and indemnification facts. D&O Side A coverage may respond to non-indemnifiable claims against named individuals when corporate indemnity is unavailable or exhausted. Separately, the SEC can seek officer-and-director bars in civil enforcement cases; private securities plaintiffs cannot seek that relief.
Audit and risk committees at companies with material AI claims have a practical operating question: show the process used to keep AI capability language accurate before it reaches public-company filings, investor materials, or board packs. The useful answer is a document, a process, a control — something that existed before a complaint and does not depend on memory.
The CEO who can point to a version-controlled record of what "AI-powered," "machine learning," "automated," and "real-time" mean inside the company, with named approvers and timestamps, is bringing the board a concrete artifact. WTW's 2025 data showed 12 AI-related securities class actions in H1 2025; Cornerstone later reported 16 AI-related filings for full-year 2025. The board question is now recurring, not exceptional.
Compliance Glossary is not a legal shield. It does not prevent a plaintiff from filing. It does not answer scienter. What it does is produce a defensible record of how AI capability language was controlled inside the company on any given date — the kind of record D&O underwriters, board committees, and defense counsel may ask for.
For current pricing, see the Atlassian Marketplace.
This article is informational and is not legal advice. Consult qualified securities counsel for litigation and disclosure decisions specific to your facts.
Under Rule 10b-5 and Janus, primary liability turns on whether the executive had ultimate authority over an alleged statement. Separate Section 20(a) control-person theories may also be pleaded. Plaintiffs must also meet PSLRA pleading standards, including scienter. In a June 2025 Tempus AI complaint summarized by The D&O Diary, both the CEO and CFO were named.
WTW reported that the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse identified 53 AI-related securities class actions through H1 2025, including 12 in H1 2025. WTW also reported 10 dismissals, seven settlements, a median settlement of $11.5M, and an average settlement of approximately $38.4M. Cornerstone Research separately reported 16 AI-related filings in full-year 2025.
No. Compliance Glossary is not a legal shield and does not replace securities, D&O, or litigation counsel. It is a time-stamped, four-eyes-approved record of what AI capability terms mean inside the company on a given date. Scienter, loss causation, and defense strategy are questions only qualified counsel can answer on the specific facts.
Last verified: 2026-06-22. Sources checked: WTW's AI-related securities litigation review, DLA Piper's AI-related filings review, Cornerstone Research's 2025 year-in-review report, SEC v. Saniger, DOJ Saniger release, and Janus.
For current pricing, see the Atlassian Marketplace.
Evaluate in Confluence Read the Security Whitepaper