b'Ninth Circuit Cases to WatchIrving Firemens Relief & Retirement Fundthe actual challenged statements. The court agreed v. Uber Technologies, Case No. 19-16667with defendants that plaintiffs attempt to link statements (9th Cir.) about growth to a reputational risk disclosure would Missed Guidance And Revised Projectionsimproperly render every company liable to every investor for every act that . harmed reputation, whenever it Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) offers app-based servicesacknowledges the prospects of future reputational risks. including peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing,Second, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege loss and food delivery. Founded in 2009, Ubers first decadecausation on the ground that the second amended in business was defined, in large part, by rapid growth.complaint shows that every fund maintained or increased Throughout 2016 and 2017, however, media outletsits valuation of Uber in the wake of revelations of Ubers published stories detailing corporate scandals at Uber.alleged misconduct.Those stories claimed, among other things, that UberPlaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the has a misogynistic corporate culture; pilfered data fromNinth Circuit on August 26, 2019. Briefing concluded its main competitor, Lyft; conspired to steal self-drivingand oral argument was heard on December 7, 2020. technology; bribed foreign officials; and was subject toThe matter is under submission. a data breach that resulted in millions of users private information being obtained by hackers. In the wake of these scandals, in June 2017, Ubers CEO, resigned. Rhode Island v. Alphabet, Inc., Case No. On September 26, 2017, an investor filed a putative20-15638 (9th Cir.) class action lawsuit against Uber and its former CEO,Google + Data Breach alleging one violation of California Corporations CodeAs discussed above, Alphabet, Inc., the parent company Sections 25400(d) and 25500, provisions derived fromof Google, is a multinational technology conglomerate substantively identical language as in the 1934 Act. Thecomprised of several former Google subsidiaries. Among crux of plaintiffs theory is that Uber falsely suggested itits products are web-browser Google, webmail Gmail, was playing by the rules and working with governmentand the now defunct social media platform Google+. In regulators when it was actually recklessly pursuing growthMarch 2018, Google discovered a software glitch in the using improper business practices.application programming interface in Google+ which After defendants moved to dismiss the consolidatedexposed hundreds of thousands of users personal data, amended complaint and the court granted that motion,which it promptly remedied, but did not disclose the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Octoberbreach at that time. Meanwhile, in its April and July 2018 17, 2018. Defendants again moved to dismiss, which theForm 10-Qs, it stated that there were no changes to its district court granted on July 31, 2019, with prejudice,prior risk factors. Such risk factors included warnings on two grounds. First, the court held that plaintiff failedthat privacy concerns could cause reputational damage to adequately allege materially false or misleadingand deter users, that breaches of Alphabets security statements or omissions, noting that plaintiffs secondmeasures could cause significant legal and financial amended complaint largely repeats statements thatexposure, and that any compromise of security that results the court previously found were not actionable falsein the release of users data could seriously harm the statements, in part because they were mere puffery orbusiness. On October 8, 2018, the Wall Street Journal accurate reports of historical information. It explained thatreported on the software glitch and data breach. Citing plaintiffs omission theory also failed because defendantsan internal Google memorandum, the Wall Street Journal were not under a duty to disclose a laundry list ofstated that Google had not disclosed the data breach allegedly fraudulent activities that are unconnected toin part because of concerns about drawing regulatory 54'