Lawsuits and regulatory inquiries involving AppLovin

attributedFrom late March 2025 shareholders filed derivative complaints in the Northern District of California against the then members of AppLovin's board, Adam Foroughi and Matthew Stumpf, alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets, and seeking contribution from Foroughi and Stumpf. Relying on the securities complaints, they allege that these defendants made materially false and misleading statements about AppLovin's advertising solutions and financial growth. ¹

qualification

These are the plaintiffs' allegations; no court has ruled on them.

response

AppLovin says the allegations lack merit and that it will vigorously contest the actions.

outcome

The derivative complaints have been consolidated and stayed until the motion to dismiss in the securities class action is decided.

attributedOn September 16, 2026 a further putative securities class action was filed in the Northern District of California (No. 3:26-cv-10584) against AppLovin, Adam Foroughi and Matthew Stumpf under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, with a jury demand. A plaintiffs' law firm announced a class action for purchasers of AppLovin securities between February 12 and August 5, 2026, alleging that the company failed to disclose that the generative AI video creative feature for its AppLovin Ads platform faced significant development delays and that it overstated how constantly it was improving its AI models and the benefits of its "virtuous cycle" value proposition; lead-plaintiff motions are due by November 16, 2026. ^{4 5}

qualification

The law firm's announcement does not name the court or the case number, so it is not confirmed that it refers to the September 16 complaint. The allegations are untested.

outcome

On the last docket update read (September 16, 2026) the case contained only the complaint and a proposed summons.

attributedIn late September 2026 AppLovin applied to the Superior Court of California in San Francisco (case CPF26520212) for a temporary restraining order against Unity, alleging that Unity's Ad Quality SDK had improperly collected data on advertisements served by AppLovin, including creatives, users and devices, impression revenue and engagement, and, "on information and belief", used it to train models competing against AppLovin in advertising auctions. The application accompanies a JAMS arbitration initiated by AppLovin with claims of breach of contract, trade-secret misappropriation, interference with business relationships and unfair competition. ^{1 2}

qualification

AppLovin's allegations as described in the press; the court filings and the arbitration papers were not retrieved.

response

Unity called the filings "a classic case of a dominant incumbent resorting to litigation and intimidation" against increased competition, said Ad Quality is a publisher-authorized product outside the companies' bidding agreement, and argued that AppLovin's own Ad Review product, formerly SafeDK, is "far more intrusive"; AppLovin says Ad Review operates only on impressions mediated through MAX and is used to moderate problematic advertising, not to build profiles or train its models.

outcome

The court declined the temporary restraining order, as reported on October 2, 2026; the decision concerned only interim relief, and the dispute on the merits continues in private arbitration.