The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) technology presents an enormous opportunity for many companies and indeed for commerce generally. It also presents an enormous challenge for companies trying to establish themselves as one of the winners in the AI scramble. Among the prominent companies involved in this scramble are several of the technology giants, including, for example, Microsoft, a company that, at least according to press reports, recently has faced some challenges with its AI product, Copilot.

Now, the company has been hit with a securities suit alleging the company overstated its AI prospects and success, while downplaying the difficulties it was facing. The complaint illustrates many of the important features of the  still-emerging AI-related litigation. A copy of the June 12, 2026, complaint against Microsoft can be found here.

Background

Microsoft is one of the world’s largest technology companies. In recent years, Azure, the company’s cloud computing platform, has been one of the company’s main growth drivers. From many years, Microsoft has also invested in AI development. In 2023, Microsoft announced its own proprietary AI chatbot, Copilot. Microsoft offers Copilot on a “freemium” model, allowing users to use basic features free of charge but then charging consumers and businesses for more premium features and capabilities.

Over the course of 2025, Microsoft announced that it had invested billions of dollars in two prominent Large Language Model (LLM) AI developers, OpenAI and Anthropic. These two companies in turn committed to purchasing significant amount of Azure services. These arrangements, the securities lawsuit alleges, were “criticized for their apparent circularity,” as these two AI companies and Microsoft committed to using each other’s products and services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the company and its executives “highlighted the purported success of Copilot and Microsoft’s foray into AI development, claiming Copilot offered best-in-class capabilities and enjoyed widespread and growing user adoption.” The company, the complaint said, also “downplayed concerns about the Company’s AI investments and business dealings with LLM providers,” and claimed that the company “was well positioned to achieve suitable returns on its AI-related investments and emerge a key benefactor from AI technological advancements.” The complaint alleges further that as a result of these statements, the company’s share price reached an all-time high.

On January 28, 2026, Microsoft announced disappointing results its fiscal second quarter, reporting among other things that the company’s Azure growth had slowed suddenly and fallen below analyst expectations, primarily due to computational capacity constraints, as the company diverted central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit capacity (GPU) capacity to Copilot applications and AI-related research and development.

The company also announced that its capital expenditures for the first half of the fiscal year had ballooned to $72.4 billion, nearly as much as for all of the prior fiscal year. The growth in capital expenditures was “largely attributed to AI-related R&D and Copilot development and capacity buildout costs.” The company also disclosed that the number of paid Copilot users was, as the complaint put it, “materially below analyst estimates.” According to the complaint, the company’s share price fell on this news.

News articles published in the days following the company’s earnings release detailed problems the company was experiencing with its Copilot product, and noted that the company was losing market share to Google’s Gemini and other competing products. An analyst report also detailed how the company’s Copilot problems and Azure problems were linked. The company’s share price continued to decline on these reports.

The Lawsuit

On June 12, 2026, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Washington against Microsoft and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company’s securities between May 1, 2025, and January 28, 2026.

The complaint alleges that during the class period the defendants failed to disclose:

(a) that Microsoft’s Copilot family of products had experienced significant brand positioning, user experience, usage, data siloing, computational capacity, organizational, and interoperability problems;

(b) that Microsoft’s flagship proprietary AI model ranked well below competitors on a number of benchmark tests;

(c) that Microsoft needed to increase by billions of dollars its capital expenditures and divert GPU and CPU capacity away from fulfilling demand for its profitable Azure services in order to improve the competitive positioning of its critical Copilot family of products and increase its AI-related R&D; and

(d) that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, Microsoft had failed to convert a significant percentage of its commercial Microsoft 365 users to paid Copilot subscriptions and the Company’s Copilot offerings has lost market share to rival product, a trend that was increasing.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the class.

Discussion

This complaint in many ways encapsulates the tumult accompanying the race to develop AI tools and the challenges involved for companies trying to position themselves to be among the AI winners. It is all there: the rapidly changing technology, the massive amounts of expenditure involved, the incredible level of competition, and the difficulties of translating the investments and efforts into a successful business strategy.

The gist of the complaint is that the company misled investors about the business prospects for its AI product, Copilot, while downplaying the financial challenges and operational problems with the tool. It is in that respect a classic case of “AI washing,” in that the plaintiff claims the company overstated its AI business prospects and opportunities.

While this case arguably fits within an existing category of AI-related litigation, there are features that make it distinct as well. The sheer size of Microsoft’s AI efforts, the importance of the company with respect to the development of AI generally, the massive size of its AI investments, the company’s conflicted relationship with two of the other major AI developers, all give this case a character of its own. In a sense, it could be said is that what this case is about is materialization and manifestation of AI technology as a material factor in the world of commerce –messy, complicated, expensive, uncertain, and difficult.

The sheer magnitude of the dollars involved in the company’s AI investments echoes allegations that have been raised in other previously filed AI related suits. For example, the lawsuit filed in February 2026 against the software firm Oracle, discussed here, also had allegations concerning the company’s massive AI infrastructure investments. In both cases, the allegations emphasized the massive ramp up in AI-related capital expenditures.

The sheer size of the investments – ranging into the tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars – does raise the possibility that that at some point it could emerge that companies  have overinvested in AI, and that the AI over-investment has created a bubble that, should it burst, could damage the prospects and valuations of many companies. Were any of that to occur, there could be a great deal more litigation about the massive investments many companies are making in AI.

The one thing that is for sure is that AI-related litigation is an important factor in the number of securities class action lawsuits so far this year. By my count, this lawsuit is the twelfth AI-related securities class action lawsuit to be filed in 2026, representing more than ten percent of this year’s securities suit filings. By way of comparison, in 2025, there were fourteen AI-related securities suits during the entire year, representing about seven percent of all 2025 filings. It seems probable that by year end, the number of AI-related suits will be a key contributor to the total number of 2026 securities suit filings.

A recent decision in the long-running securities litigation involving Cutera, Inc. serves as a potent reminder of the complex interplay between securities class actions and Chapter 11 restructuring. In a May 11, 2026, order, the Northern District of California dismissed the suit against Cutera and its former executives, ruling that claims against the company were legally discharged via its bankruptcy reorganization and that allegations against the individual defendants failed to meet the PSLRA’s exacting scienter standards.

Continue Reading Securities Suit Dismissed: Bankruptcy Discharge and Scienter Deficiencies

In recent posts (for example, here), we have documented growing problems in the private credit industry. As we have also discussed (most recently here), in many instances these problems have translated into corporate litigation. Among the growing numbers of private credit market-related lawsuit filings has been a series of lawsuits against filed Blue Owl Capital and related entities.

In the latest development in this series, last week a plaintiff investor filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of one of the Blue Owl funds against the fund’s investment manager and advisor, alleging that the advisor’s conflicted valuations of the fund’s private credit assets resulted in the payment of improper and excessive fees to the advisor. The new lawsuit has several interesting features and suggests the possibility of further litigation in the private credit space. A copy of the June 5, 2026, lawsuit can be found here.

Continue Reading More Litigation in the Private Credit Industry

The annual shareholder proposal season often serves as a useful barometer of investor priorities, corporate governance trends, and emerging areas of potential D&O risk. This year, however, the proxy season also provided a glimpse into what may become a fundamentally different shareholder activism landscape.

Continue Reading 2026 Shareholder Proposal Season and Look Forward
Geoffrey Fehling
Charlotte Leszinske

One of the common situations in which D&O insurance is called into play is when a company’s board has been hit with a shareholder derivative lawsuit. In the following guest post, Geoffrey B. Fehling and Charlotte E. Leszinske examine a recent derivative suit and consider the D&O insurance issues that can arise in the derivative lawsuit context. Geoff is a Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, and Charlotte is an Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. A version of this article previously was published as a Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert. My thanks to Geoff and Charlotte for allowing us to publish their article as a guest post on this site. Here is the authors’ article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Leveraging D&O Insurance for Shareholder Derivative Claims

As we teased in our 20th Anniversary post, the D&O Diary Podcast launched earlier this week. We recognize that content is consumed across a variety of media, and we are grateful to our community for suggesting that we record a podcast discussing D&O Diary topics.

Continue Reading The D&O Diary Launches Podcast Series

D&O Diary readers are likely familiar with the following pattern involving short seller reports: the short seller publishes attention-grabbing revelations about the operations or financial results of a listed company; the company’s shares decline; and a plaintiffs’ securities class action law firm files a securities class action lawsuit, often based solely on the accusations in the short seller’s report.  However, in a lawsuit filed on May 1, 2026, in the Southern District of Florida, Starfighters Space, Inc. (Starfighters) and related entities flipped the script. Starfighters complaint against purported short sellers alleges a coordinated “short-and-distort” campaign involving the publication of a purported research report and its amplification across social media platforms (Starfighters Lawsuit).  

Continue Reading Affirmative Litigation and “Short-and-Distort” Campaigns

Over the last several years, the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions addressing the SEC’s powers to seek disgorgement against alleged securities law violators. Last Thursday, in the latest decision in the recent series, the Court issued a unanimous decision holding in Sripetch v. SEC that the SEC can seek disgorgement as a remedy even if the agency cannot prove that investors suffered a financial loss. The decision, which resolves a split between the federal judicial circuits on the issue, represents an affirmation of the SEC’s disgorgement authority. The Supreme Court’s June 4, 2026, ruling can be found here.

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court: Financial Loss Not a Precondition for SEC Disgorgement Authority

One of the more noteworthy recent trends in corporate law has been the push for companies (particularly companies incorporated in Delaware) to consider reincorporating elsewhere (primarily Texas or Nevada). A number of companies have in fact changed their state of incorporation. Arguably the biggest move of all is ExxonMobil’s recent action to reincorporate in Texas, which the company’s shareholders approved in May. The company’s change in its state of incorporation after roughly 140 years of corporate existence is a noteworthy development, and worth considering further.

Continue Reading Thinking About Exxon’s Reincorporation in Texas

Over the last several years, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved into a central component of many companies’ growth strategies. As organizations increasingly integrate AI into their operations, products, and business models, the associated litigation risks have begun to emerge as well. The D&O Diary has been tracking the rise of AI-related litigation, from early AI-washing cases to a growing number of securities suits involving AI infrastructure investments, AI-enabled business models, and AI-related disclosure issues.

Continue Reading AI, D&O Risk, and the Limits of Underwriting