In re Alphabet, Inc. Securities Litigation
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1 F.4th 687 (2021)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Google LLC (defendant) and its parent company, Alphabet, Inc. (defendant), launched Google+, a social-media network. Lawrence Page (defendant) was the chief executive officer of Alphabet. Sundar Pichai (defendant) was the chief executive officer of Google. Google and Alphabet discovered a security glitch that exposed Google+ user data to third parties. Google and Alphabet concealed the cybersecurity data breach in order to avoid regulatory and governmental scrutiny. Rather than disclosing the actual data breach, Alphabet made general statements in a Form 10-K and a Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about potential cybersecurity risk factors and the importance of protecting the privacy of Google+ users. Alphabet’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q also untruthfully stated that there had been no changes to the cybersecurity risk factors. After Alphabet and Google shut down Google+, a news article was published that revealed the data breach. Alphabet’s stock price fell. Alphabet’s investors (plaintiffs) filed suit, claiming that Alphabet, Google, Page, and Pichai had committed securities fraud by covering up the data breach. Alphabet moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted Alphabet’s motion, finding that the complaint failed to allege that Alphabet had made any material misrepresentations or omissions. The investors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ikuta, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.