--- title: "Lawsuits and regulatory inquiries involving AppLovin" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/applovin-corp/legal/ as_of: 2026-10-16 keywords: ["AppLovin","Adam Foroughi","Herald Chen","KKR Denali","Voting Agreement","Angel Pride Holdings","Hontai App Fund","Orient Hontai","Hao Tang","Midterm Success","Adjust","Machine Zone","Tripledot","MoPub","Culper Research","Muddy Waters Research","Fuzzy Panda Research","securities class action","The Privacy Collective","Hart-Scott-Rodino Act"] --- # Lawsuits and regulatory inquiries involving AppLovin **Question.** Which lawsuits and inquiries does AppLovin face, and where do they stand? **Answer.** Two securities class actions and consolidated derivative suits are pending in the Northern District of California; the first awaits a ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Privacy Collective sued AppLovin and Adjust in Amsterdam in May 2026. AppLovin's request for a restraining order against Unity was declined and the dispute continues in arbitration. The press reports an SEC investigation, which AppLovin neither confirms nor names in its reports. No court or regulator has found against AppLovin in any of them. ## What AppLovin discloses - Analysis: AppLovin's 2025 annual report and its report for the second quarter of 2026 say in general terms that it is involved in legal proceedings and "governmental and other regulatory investigations and proceedings", but name only the securities class action and the derivative litigation, and state that the possible loss cannot be estimated. [src-002] [src-059] ## US securities and derivative suits - Analysis: From March 2025 shareholders filed class actions against AppLovin, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf and Herald Chen under the Securities Exchange Act. In the remaining case, No. 4:25-cv-02772 before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., the lead plaintiffs Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds and Monroe County Employees' Retirement System filed an amended complaint in September 2025 that added Basil Shikin, alleging misleading statements about AppLovin's advertising solutions and growth between November 7, 2024 and March 27, 2025. AppLovin says the claims lack merit. The court took the motion to dismiss under submission in April 2026 and on September 30, 2026 denied the plaintiffs' motion to supplement their complaint; no ruling on the merits is in the record. [src-002] [src-031] [src-032] - Documented: The court docket for case No. 4:25-cv-02772, assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., records the amended complaint filed on September 12, 2025 by Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds and Monroe County Employees' Retirement System against AppLovin, Herald Chen, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf and Vasily (Basil) Shikin, the defendants' motion to dismiss of November 14, 2025 (with a hearing then set for March 12, 2026), the court's notice of April 14, 2026 taking the pending motions under submission and vacating the April 23 hearing, and its order of September 30, 2026 denying the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the complaint. [src-031] [src-032] - Qualification: Read on a court-docket aggregator; the order on the motion to dismiss is not on the docket pages read. - Analysis: Derivative suits filed from March 2025 against the directors, Foroughi and Stumpf on the same allegations have been consolidated and stayed until the motion is decided. On September 16, 2026 a further class action (No. 3:26-cv-10584) was filed against AppLovin, Foroughi and Stumpf; a law firm announced a class period from February 12 to August 5, 2026 and allegations about delays to a generative AI video feature, though its link to that case is not confirmed. [src-002] [src-063] [src-061] - Attributed: From 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. [src-002] - 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. - Attributed: On 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. [src-063] [src-061] - 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. ## Dutch privacy collective action - Analysis: On May 21, 2026 Stichting The Privacy Collective served a summons under the Dutch collective-action rules on AppLovin Corporation and Adjust GmbH, before the Amsterdam District Court. It sues for Dutch users of apps with their SDKs since May 2018, at least 8.5 million people, alleging processing without legal basis, transparency or child protection in breach of the GDPR and the Telecommunications Act, and seeks injunctions, penalty payments and compensation. Amnesty International Netherlands publicly supported the claim. No ruling is in the record. [src-085] [src-068] [src-118] ## Other proceedings - Analysis: In September 2026 AppLovin asked the San Francisco Superior Court for a temporary restraining order against Unity, alleging that Unity's Ad Quality SDK collected data on AppLovin's advertisements and used it to train competing models, and began a JAMS arbitration. Unity called the filings litigation and intimidation by a dominant incumbent; the court declined the order, which concerned only interim relief. [src-098] [src-106] - Attributed: In 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. [src-098] [src-106] - 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. - Analysis: Fuzzy Panda Research wrote that a 2024 class action in Santa Clara County accuses AppLovin of tracking users through the Adjust SDK without consent; the complaint was not retrieved and the case is not named in AppLovin's filings. AppLovin also kept responsibility for some proceedings concerning the studios it sold in 2025. [src-076] [src-002] ## Reported SEC investigation - Analysis: In October 2025 the press reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that the SEC was investigating whether AppLovin had violated platform partners' service agreements to target advertising, in response to a whistleblower complaint and short-seller reports, and that no one had been accused. AppLovin said it does not comment on the existence of regulatory matters. In February 2026 the press quoted an SEC letter saying an investigation involving AppLovin was still active; the letter itself is not in the record. [src-064] [src-065] ## Sources - [src-002] AppLovin Corporation annual report on Form 10-K for 2025, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2026 - [src-059] AppLovin Corporation quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2026, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2026 - [src-031] Court record source · src-031 - [src-032] Court record source · src-032 - [src-063] Court record source · src-063 - [src-061] Other source · src-061 - [src-085] Extract for the Dutch central register of collective actions: Stichting The Privacy Collective v. AppLovin Corporation and Adjust GmbH, De Rechtspraak (Dutch judiciary), 2026-05-21 - [src-068] Media source · src-068 - [src-118] Other source · src-118 - [src-098] Media source · src-098 - [src-106] Media source · src-106 - [src-076] Research source · src-076 - [src-064] Media source · src-064 - [src-065] Media source · src-065