Jump to content

Rosen v Pichai

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Rosen v Pichai[1]
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois[1]
Docket 1:26-cv-13499[1]
Filed October 30, 2026[1]
Judge(s) Not identified in the sources reviewed.
Plaintiffs Phil Rosen, derivatively on behalf of Alphabet Inc.[1]
Defendants Sundar Pichai and other Alphabet officers and directors; Alphabet Inc. as nominal defendant[1]
Case type Stockholder derivative action[1]
Claims / issues Fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and proxy disclosures; alleged use of copyrighted works and biometric voiceprints in AI development[1]
Status Complaint filed October 30, 2026; subsequent procedural developments not verified.[1]

Rosen v Pichai is a stockholder derivative action filed by Phil Rosen on behalf of Alphabet Inc. against Alphabet officers and directors in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants adopted or permitted an AI development strategy involving copyrighted works and biometric voiceprints without required authorization.[1]

Allegations and claims

The complaint alleges that Alphabet used copyrighted material and voice recordings in developing generative AI and voice models, exposing the company to potential liability. It alleges that officers and directors breached their duties in connection with that conduct and related disclosures. These are allegations in the complaint.[1]

Rosen asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against all individual defendants, and a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the director defendants concerning proxy statements. The complaint seeks relief including damages for Alphabet, restitution and corporate governance reforms.[1]

Procedural history

Rosen filed the verified complaint on October 30, 2026. The subsequent procedural history has not been verified.[1]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 Verified stockholder derivative complaint, Rosen v. Pichai, No. 1:26-cv-13499 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2026), ECF No. 1.