Introduction to Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Future Trends

The landscape of securities class action lawsuits is poised for significant transformation by 2025, driven by the rapid evolution of technology and regulatory frameworks. A key trend that is expected to dominate this space is the integration of AI oversight in both the detection and management of securities fraud.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated, enabling regulators and legal professionals to analyze vast datasets, identify patterns indicative of fraudulent activity, and predict potential violations with greater accuracy. As a result, AI oversight is likely to become an indispensable component in the enforcement of securities laws, aiding in the swift identification and resolution of class action lawsuits.

Another critical trend in securities litigation is the heightened focus on cybersecurity concerns. With the growing reliance on digital platforms for trading and financial transactions, the risks associated with data breaches and cyber-attacks have escalated. Companies are now more vulnerable to cyber threats that can compromise sensitive information, leading to significant financial losses and legal repercussions.

Consequently, securities class action lawsuits are expected to increasingly address issues related to cybersecurity breaches, with plaintiffs alleging that companies failed to implement adequate security measures to protect investor data. This shift will necessitate that corporations prioritize robust cybersecurity protocols to mitigate potential litigation risks.

Moreover, the evolving regulatory environment will continue to shape the future of securities class action lawsuits. Governments and regulatory bodies worldwide are likely to implement stricter compliance requirements and enhanced scrutiny to protect investors. This regulatory tightening will compel companies to maintain higher standards of transparency and accountability, thereby reducing opportunities for fraudulent activities.

As corporations adapt to these changes, the role of AI oversight will be further emphasized, ensuring compliance and reducing the incidence of securities fraud.

In conclusion, by 2025, the dynamics of securities class action lawsuits will be profoundly influenced by technological advancements and emerging regulatory trends. The integration of AI oversight will revolutionize how fraud is detected and managed, while heightened cybersecurity concerns will redefine the scope of litigation in this domain.

Companies must remain vigilant and proactive in embracing these changes to safeguard investor interests and minimize litigation risks. The future of securities litigation will undoubtedly be shaped by these pivotal trends, driving a more secure and transparent financial ecosystem.

Understanding Securities Class Action Lawsuits

Reasons for securities class action lawsuits

• Material misrepresentations: A company or its executives make false or misleading statements in SEC filings (like a Form 10-K), earnings announcements, or prospectuses.
• Key omissions: The company intentionally omits critical information that could have influenced an investor’s decision, such as hiding poor financial health or operational issues.
• Accounting irregularities: The company is accused of committing accounting fraud by falsifying its financial statements, as seen in past cases like Enron and WorldCom.
• Corporate misconduct: The company is involved in fraud, insider trading, or other illegal activities that manipulate stock prices.
• Poor guidance: In 2024, allegations of missed earnings guidance were the most common reason for class action filings, accounting for 41% of cases.

How securities class action lawsuits work

1. Complaint is filed: Securities class action lawsuits are filed on behalf of all affected investors, known as the “class”. A “class period” is defined, which is the time frame during which the fraud allegedly took place and artificially inflated the stock price.
2. Lead plaintiff selection: The PSLRA requires the first plaintiff to file to issue a public notice of the lawsuit. Other investors then have 60 days to apply to be lead plaintiff. The court typically appoints the investor with the largest financial stake to lead the lawsuit on behalf of the class.
3. Motion to dismiss: Defendants often file a motion to dismiss the case. The PSLRA imposes a high bar, requiring plaintiffs to plead with particularity facts that create a “strong inference” of scienter, or fraudulent intent.
4. Discovery: If the motion to dismiss fails, a lengthy and expensive discovery phase begins. Both sides exchange documents, testimony, and other evidence.
5. Class certification: The lead plaintiff asks the court to certify the case as a class action. The court checks if the class is sufficiently large and if the lead plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class.
6. Settlement or trial: Most securities class actions that survive the motion to dismiss are resolved through a settlement rather than a trial. If a settlement is reached, the court must approve the terms as fair and adequate for the class.
7. Recovery: A court-appointed claims administrator distributes the settlement funds to eligible class members who have filed a valid claim.

Impact on companies and investors

• For defendants:
  • Decreased equity value: The announcement of a securities class action can cause a significant drop in a company’s stock price, independent of the alleged misconduct.
  • Reputational damages: Securities litigation can tarnish a company’s reputation, potentially affecting customer loyalty and attracting new investors.
  • Operational changes: Studies show that companies facing securities lawsuits may increase cash holdings and leverage while decreasing overinvestment and payouts.
• For investors:
  • Collective power: Class actions empower individual investors with small losses to seek redress against powerful corporations.
  • Efficient legal process: By consolidating claims, class actions streamline the legal process and prevent the court system from being flooded with individual lawsuits.
  • Cost-effective participation: Investors can participate and potentially recover losses without having to pay legal fees upfront.
  • Potential for low payouts: Class members with small losses may receive little compensation, with averages sometimes reaching only 5 to 15 cents on the dollar.
  • Lengthy process: It can take years for a securities class action to resolve and for investors to receive compensation.

The Role of Class Actions

Class action lawsuits are a legal mechanism that allows a large group of people (a “class”) to collectively sue a defendant who has allegedly caused them similar harm. This approach is particularly useful in situations where individual claims might be too small to justify the expense of a separate lawsuit, but the combined claims represent a significant grievance against the defendant.

Class actions serve as a powerful tool for investors, allowing them to pool their resources and pursue claims collectively. This approach not only enhances the efficiency of the legal process but also provides a means for individual investors to seek justice against larger corporations that may otherwise be difficult to challenge.

1. Ensuring access to justice

• Class action lawsuits provide a means for individuals with relatively small individual claims, who might not have the resources to pursue legal action on their own, to collectively seek redress against powerful and well-funded corporations.
• They democratize access to justice by permitting individuals from diverse backgrounds to hold wrongdoers liable in securities class action settlements, regardless of their financial means or social standing.

2. Promoting efficiency and streamlining litigation

• By consolidating numerous similar individual claims into a single lawsuit, class actions streamline the legal process, reducing redundancy and saving time, money, and resources for both the plaintiffs and the court system.
• They allow for a single resolution to issues affecting all class members, preventing the court system from being clogged with numerous individual lawsuits. 

3. Deterring wrongdoing and fostering corporate accountability

• The mere possibility for significant financial compensation to class actions can incentivize well-funded corporations to correct their wrongdoings and implement safeguard and enhaned corporate governance, to prevent future issues.
• Class actions also have the ability to bring wrongdoing to the public attention of corporate misconduct, potentially leading to regulatory changes, corporate governance enhancements and deterrence of future wrongdoing.

4.  Addressing collective harm and realizing broader societal change

• Class actions allow a group of individuals who share common claims to combine their efforts into a single, collective lawsuit, which can be more effective than individual litigation, especially when going up against powerful well-funded corporations,
• They can serve as a very strong deterrent to future misconduct, and thereby promote a safer and fairer marketplace for consumers and employees and others.

5. The Possibility for larger setttlements with equitable distribution

• The cohesivcness of a large group of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit can lead to better settlement term and higher compensation than individuals might achieve independently, if there could affored to bring an individual action in the first instance.
• It may be true in certain cases that individual payouts may be smaller due to being distributed among a very large number of class members, but the overall recovery can be substantial.
• Moreover, class actions allow for a more equitable distribution of compensation among all class members and ensures that every individual affected receives their fair share, even if the harm they suffered was relatively small losses:

Key Players in Securities Class Actions

Several key players, from the investors themselves to the legal and administrative personnel, are involved in a securities class action lawsuit. The roles of these players are largely shaped by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which sought to give control of such litigation to the investors with the most at stake. 

The Impact of Technology and AI

New grounds for litigation

• “AI washing”: Companies face increased legal risk for exaggerating or misrepresenting their AI capabilities to inflate stock prices. The SEC is actively scrutinizing these claims and has already brought enforcement actions against companies for making false and misleading statements about their use of AI.
• Failure to disclose risks: Companies are being sued not only for overstating AI benefits but also for failing to disclose associated risks, such as cybersecurity vulnerabilities, data privacy issues, and the impact of external AI developments on their business.
• Cybersecurity incidents: As corporations invest heavily in cybersecurity, investors are filing more securities class actions based on allegations that companies misled them about cybersecurity events. Significant settlements have been recorded in cases involving companies that failed to disclose data breaches or downplayed the impact of cyberattacks.

Technological advancements in litigation

• Enhanced fraud detection: AI and data analytics allow regulators and legal teams to analyze massive amounts of data from news feeds, trading data, and other sources. This helps to identify patterns and anomalies that indicate potential misconduct, including accounting irregularities, insider trading, and market manipulation.
• Streamlined e-discovery: E-discovery tools, including generative AI, are transforming the process of identifying, collecting, and reviewing electronically stored information. These tools accelerate document review, summarize key information, and help build stronger cases by analyzing data for sentiment and relevant patterns.
• Predictive analytics: AI-driven predictive analytics can analyze historical litigation data to forecast case outcomes, assess settlement probabilities, and inform legal strategy. This provides legal teams with data-driven insights to make more strategic decisions.
• Automated settlements: Automated systems and the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail could revolutionize how settlement funds are distributed to investors. By collecting transaction data from banks and brokers, these systems could automate calculations and payments to class members.

Increased complexity and ethical considerations

• Data integrity and privacy: The extensive use of data in AI tools raises concerns about data privacy and the potential for algorithmic bias. Legal teams must address these ethical considerations to ensure fair and unbiased analysis.
• Regulatory focus: The SEC and other regulatory bodies are closely monitoring AI disclosures and compliance. The SEC has appointed a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer to advance AI governance and enforcement.
• Evolution of litigation: The emergence of new technologies and associated risks means that legal strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants are continuously evolving. The nature and content of company AI disclosures about technology, data security, and AI are now under heightened scrutiny.

AI Disclosures

Contexts where AI disclosures are required or recommended

• When interacting with customers: Businesses are generally required to disclose when a person is communicating with a chatbot, automated assistant, or other AI system instead of a human. Some laws, like Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (UAIP), mandate disclosure if a consumer asks whether AI is being used.
• In high-stakes decisions: Disclosure is critical when AI plays a significant role in consequential decisions that affect individuals’ lives. Examples include loan approvals, hiring recommendations, or medical diagnoses. Colorado’s AI Act (CAIA), effective in 2026, requires developers and deployers to notify consumers when a high-risk AI system is used to make such decisions.
• For AI-generated content: As generative AI becomes more sophisticated, disclosing artificially created or manipulated content is essential to combat disinformation.
  • Labeling: Regulations like the EU AI Act require AI-generated content to be clearly labeled as synthetic in a machine-readable format.
  • Watermarking: The California AI Transparency Act, effective January 1, 2026, mandates that generative AI providers include both conspicuous and latent (digital watermark) disclosures for AI-generated images.
• For investors and public reporting: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has increased scrutiny of AI-related claims. Companies must accurately disclose their use of AI, the associated business strategy, and the technology’s potential risks. Misrepresenting or “AI-washing” capabilities can lead to regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions.
• In employment decisions: Several U.S. jurisdictions, including New York City, Illinois, and Maryland, have laws requiring employers to disclose when AI is used in hiring, interviewing, or other automated employment decision tools.

Key components of effective AI disclosures

Challenges and debates over AI disclosures

• Clutter vs. detail: Some critics argue that excessive or overly technical disclosures could overwhelm and confuse consumers, leading to “notification fatigue”.
• Innovation vs. compliance: Balancing transparency requirements with protecting intellectual property and trade secrets is a concern for many companies, especially in a rapidly evolving field.
• Regulatory patchwork: The lack of a uniform global standard means companies operating internationally face a complex patchwork of conflicting regulations.
• Balancing transparency and privacy: Disclosing information about data used for training AI can sometimes conflict with data protection requirements, like the EU’s GDPR.

Cybersecurity Concerns Over a Cybersecurity Incident

How cybersecurity incident leads to securities class actions

Key triggers for a cybersecurity securities class action

• Misleading or inadequate cybersecurity disclosures: The lawsuit claims that the company or its executives failed to adequately disclose cybersecurity concerns or downplayed a security incident’s severity, scope, or impact. Examples include:
  • Presenting cybersecurity risks as hypothetical when an incident has already occurred.
  • Minimizing the scope of acybersecurity incident or the extent of data exfiltrated.
  • Making false statements about the encryption level of a platform or the adequacy of data privacy and security measures.
• Failure to disclose a “material” incident: Under the SEC’s 2023 rules, public companies must disclose a material cybersecurity incident within four business days of deeming it material. The materiality analysis considers factors such as:
  • Quantitative financial impacts (e.g., lost revenue, remediation costs, litigation expenses).
  • Operational impact and disruption.
  • Harm to reputation and business relationships.
  • The nature and scope of compromised data.
• Cybersecurity Disclosure control failures: The SEC and investors are scrutinizing whether companies have effective cybersecurity disclosure controls to ensure that information about cybersecurity events reaches management and decision-makers in a timely and accurate manner.
• “AI washing”: A new and growing area of risk involves companies that exaggerate or misrepresent their AI capabilities to boost stock prices. If these claims are revealed to be false, and a related cybersecurity incident or vulnerability is exposed, investors can file a securities fraud class action.

SEC enforcement and recent trends

• Heightened SEC scrutiny: The SEC is actively bringing enforcement actions against companies for misleading cybersecurity disclosures over a cybersecurity incident. Recent settlements include cases against companies for “negligently minimizing” the impact of the SolarWinds breach and for making false claims about AI capabilities.
• Global regulations: While the SEC has led the way in cybersecurity disclosure rules, other regulatory bodies, such as the EU’s GDPR and Australia’s Privacy Act, also have breach notification requirements. This leads to increased litigation risk for multinational companies.

How companies mitigate risk through cybersecurity disclosures

• Comprehensive incident response plans: Developing and maintaining robust plans to ensure a swift, organized, and compliant response to a cyber incident.
• Regular reviews and updates: Frequently reviewing and updating cybersecurity disclosures and controls and procedures to ensure timely and accurate reporting of acybersecurity incident.
• Board-level oversight: Increasing board-level oversight and transparency concerning cybersecurity risks and management’s role in addressing them.
• Risk assessment and benchmarking: Conducting regular risk assessments and benchmarking controls against industry standards, such as those from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Other Cybersecurity Concerns

AI-washing claims

• Examples:
  • Overstating capabilities: A company exaggerated the effectiveness of its AI-powered security scanners, claiming the technology could reliably detect threats when it could not.
  • Misrepresenting AI use: The SEC and Department of Justice filed joint actions against a company for allegedly misrepresenting its mobile shopping app’s use of AI. The app was performing tasks manually with foreign workers, not with “magic” AI.
  • Failure to cybersecurity risks: Some securities class actions allege companies failed cybersecurity disclosures  or to disclose how competitors’ external AI developments, such as zero-click search, could hurt their own user traffic and revenue.

Data privacy violations

• Customer data breaches: While related to a cybersecurity incident, some cases are more focused on the privacy implications of data exposure. In 2024, a major settlement involved a lawsuit alleging a company concealed a software flaw that exposed user profile data for several years.
• Non-breach-related privacy issues: In the case of Zoom, securities litigation focused on allegations that the company made misleading statements about the encryption level of video calls and the adequacy of its privacy measures.

Inadequate disclosure controls and procedures

• Lack of effective controls: A company may be sued if it is found to have had inadequate corporate governance or controls over non-financial matters like a cybersecurity incident. This could result in inaccurate statements about a ransomware attack, even if the misconduct was unintentional.
• Misleading disclosures: Several companies associated with the SolarWinds breach faced SEC action for misleading cybersecurity disclosures, including for minimizing the impact of the attack and for maintaining that cybersecurity risks were hypothetical when they were known.

Supply chain vulnerabilities

• Failure to disclose risks: Companies can be sued if they fail to make cybersecurity disclosures about a known cybersecurity incident or risks related to their supply chain or fail to update investors on how those risks are being mitigated. This can include allegations that a company made healthy earnings forecasts while experiencing supply chain constraints.
• Undisclosed vulnerabilities: A company may face litigation if it fails to disclose in cybersecurity disclosures that its customers have purchased excess inventory due to supply chain issues, creating a risk that future sales will fall.

Requirements for Companies Disclosing a Material Cybersecurity Incident to the SEC

The Future of Securities Litigation and Technological Advancements

New frontiers of litigation

• AI-driven securities fraud. So-called “AI-washing”—where companies exaggerate their AI capabilities to boost stock prices—is a rapidly growing area of securities litigation. Cases alleging misleading statements and AI disclosures about AI have proven harder to dismiss than traditional class actions, with a higher likelihood of surviving a motion to dismiss. In 2025, the SEC and Department of Justice filed parallel enforcement actions over AI-washing claims, signaling a high level of regulatory interest.
• Crypto-asset litigation. As the market for digital assets matures, so does the litigation surrounding it. Lawsuits often focus on the fraudulent promotion or sale of unregistered digital tokens and on exchange accountability. The SEC has filed multiple enforcement actions related to cryptocurrency fraud, and this will likely continue as regulatory guidance evolves.
• ESG disclosure scrutiny. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors are receiving more attention from investors, leading to increased securities litigation related to misleading sustainability claims or failures to disclose material ESG risks. Regulatory changes, such as the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rule, are intensifying the focus on accurate ESG reporting.
• Cybersecurity-as-fraud claims. While the number of cybersecurity-related filings has recently declined, litigation will persist around companies’ handling of significant data breaches and the adequacy of their cybersecurity disclosures. The SEC’s new rules requiring disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents within four business days are likely to prompt more event-driven litigation.

Advanced technology in the legal process

• AI for legal analytics. Legal teams are increasingly using AI and data analytics to streamline litigation and detect misconduct. These tools can analyze vast amounts of data to identify patterns indicative of fraud, including accounting irregularities, insider trading, and market manipulation.
• Predictive analytics. AI-driven predictive analytics analyze historical litigation data, judge rulings, and market trends to forecast case outcomes, settlement probabilities, and potential damages. This allows attorneys to make more informed strategic decisions about whether to settle or proceed to trial.
• Blockchain for evidence authentication. Blockchain’s immutable ledger provides a reliable method for authenticating trade records, contracts, and financial transactions. This can serve as indisputable evidence in securities litigation related to digital assets and potentially other forms of fraud.
• Enhanced e-discovery. AI-powered e-discovery tools can quickly process and review massive volumes of digital evidence. This capability accelerates the discovery phase, reduces manual review costs, and helps identify relevant documents more efficiently.

Challenges and risk mitigation

• AI and data privacy. The increasing use of AI for legal analytics raises concerns about data privacy and the ethical use of large datasets. Legal teams must ensure their use of AI aligns with data privacy regulations and avoids algorithmic bias.
• Regulatory uncertainty. As new technologies and markets emerge, regulators are working to adapt existing securities laws. However, some regulatory frameworks for areas like AI and crypto-assets are still evolving, which can create uncertainty for both companies and investors.
• Robust risk management. To mitigate litigation risk, companies must develop comprehensive strategies for managing technology-related risks. This includes standardizing AI terminology across all communications, implementing robust internal controls for AI-related statements, and disclosing forward-looking risks in detail.

Conclusion

As we look towards the future of securities class action lawsuits in 2025, it becomes evident that the landscape of securities litigation is poised for significant evolution. This shift is driven by a combination of regulatory changes, advancements in technology, and evolving standards in corporate governance. With increased scrutiny on corporate behaviors and the growing influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, companies are under more pressure than ever to uphold stringent governance practices to mitigate risks related to securities litigation.

Technological advancements are particularly noteworthy, as they offer both opportunities and challenges in the realm of securities litigation. On one hand, sophisticated data analytics and artificial intelligence are enabling more precise detection of fraudulent activities and misconduct within corporations.

These technologies allow for earlier identification of potential issues, thereby preemptively addressing concerns before they escalate into full-blown securities class action lawsuits. On the other hand, these advancements also necessitate robust cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information from breaches that could lead to litigation.

Moreover, the regulatory environment is expected to become more stringent, with agencies like the SEC implementing stricter guidelines and enforcement practices. This heightened regulatory oversight is aimed at enhancing investor protection and ensuring greater transparency in financial disclosures. Companies will need to adapt to these changes by reinforcing their corporate governance frameworks to comply with new standards and avoid the pitfalls associated with non-compliance.

In addition, the rise of shareholder activism is likely to play a crucial role in shaping securities litigation trends. Shareholders are becoming increasingly vocal and proactive in holding companies accountable for their actions, particularly in areas related to ESG criteria. This shift towards greater accountability is expected to lead to a higher frequency of securities class action lawsuits as shareholders seek redress for perceived wrongdoings.

In conclusion, the future trends in securities litigation by 2025 will be characterized by enhanced corporate governance practices, the integration of advanced technologies for fraud detection and prevention, and a more rigorous regulatory landscape. Companies must stay ahead of these developments by adopting proactive measures to ensure compliance and safeguard against potential legal challenges. By doing so, they can not only protect their interests but also foster a culture of transparency and accountability that benefits all stakeholders.

Visit Our Extensive Investor Hub: Learning for Informed Investors