TL;DR
A federal judge in Texas dismissed a securities-fraud suit by CrowdStrike investors over the company’s July 2024 global outage, finding the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege intent to defraud. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs have permission to file an amended complaint.
What happened
Investors who sued CrowdStrike after a widespread July 2024 outage will not prevail on their current complaint, at least for now. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas considered allegations that 15 statements by CrowdStrike leadership were misleading. He concluded that two of those statements could plausibly be misleading but that plaintiffs did not adequately plead a strong inference of scienter — the intent or knowledge required to support a securities-fraud claim. As a result, the court granted CrowdStrike’s motion to dismiss the case, but did so without prejudice, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to refile an amended complaint. The suit traces back to a faulty Falcon sensor content configuration update for Windows that in July 2024 caused many machines worldwide to blue-screen after an internal validation check failed. The original complaint was filed by the Plymouth County Retirement Association and later expanded into a class action led by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli; his office said the decision is under review.
Why it matters
- Reinforces the high pleading standard for securities-fraud claims, particularly the need to allege defendants’ intent to defraud (scienter).
- Signals that corporate statements characterized as optimistic or categorical may be treated as nonactionable puffery unless tied to deceptive intent.
- Leaves institutional investors with limited immediate recourse to recover market losses tied to operational incidents unless they can better plead scienter.
- Highlights carryover legal implications from the July 2024 outage, including separate litigation avenues still in progress.
Key facts
- Judge: U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, Western District of Texas.
- Allegations: Plaintiffs claimed 15 CrowdStrike leadership statements were misleading; court found two plausibly misleading.
- Legal shortfall: Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege scienter, a required element for securities-fraud claims.
- Disposition: Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the securities suit; dismissal was without prejudice.
- Background incident: July 2024 faulty Falcon sensor content configuration update for Windows caused widespread blue screens after internal validation failed.
- Lead plaintiffs: Plymouth County Retirement Association; case later became a class action led by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.
- Prior rulings: Pitman previously dismissed a passenger suit tied to the outage on Airline Deregulation Act preemption grounds and ruled against claims tied to an April 2023 comment by CrowdStrike’s president as nonactionable puffery.
- Company response: CrowdStrike’s chief legal officer said the company appreciated the court’s decision; DiNapoli’s office said the decision is under review.
- Related litigation: Delta Air Lines’ separate suit against CrowdStrike in Georgia state court is ongoing after surviving a motion to dismiss.
What to watch next
- Whether plaintiffs file an amended complaint and what additional facts or allegations they add.
- How the court evaluates any newly alleged facts or inferences of scienter if an amended complaint is filed.
- The stance and next steps communicated by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office as it reviews the decision.
- Progress and outcome of Delta Air Lines’ separate lawsuit in Georgia state court.
Quick glossary
- Scienter: A legal term for intent or knowledge of wrongdoing required to prove certain fraud claims, including many securities-fraud suits.
- Securities-fraud claim: A legal allegation that a company or its officers misled investors through false statements or omissions that affected investment decisions and market value.
- Class action: A lawsuit where one or more plaintiffs sue on behalf of a larger group of people who suffered similar harm.
- Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preemption: A federal legal doctrine that can bar state-law claims affecting airline rates, routes, or services, by preempting conflicting state remedies.
- Blue screen of death (BSOD): A Windows system crash screen indicating a severe system error that forces a halt; often used in reporting to describe widespread endpoint failures.
Reader FAQ
Who brought the lawsuit against CrowdStrike?
The suit was filed by the Plymouth County Retirement Association and expanded into a class action led by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.
Why did the judge dismiss the case?
Judge Pitman found plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged scienter — the required intent or knowledge of wrongdoing to support a securities-fraud claim.
Is the case over?
No. The dismissal was without prejudice and the court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
What caused the July 2024 outage?
The outage followed a malformed Falcon sensor content configuration update for Windows and a failure in CrowdStrike’s internal validation system.
Are there other lawsuits related to the outage?
Yes. A passenger lawsuit was previously dismissed on ADA preemption grounds, and Delta Air Lines’ separate suit in Georgia state court is ongoing.
LEGAL 1 CrowdStrike shareholders lose battle to recoup losses from 2024 outage Investors didn't present a valid claim, says judge, but they're welcome to try again Brandon Vigliarolo Wed 14 Jan 2026 //…
Sources
- CrowdStrike shareholders lose battle to recoup losses from 2024 outage
- CrowdStrike defeats shareholder lawsuit over huge …
- CrowdStrike's estimated $60 million tab from causing …
- Case in point: taking stock of the CrowdStrike outages – CIO
Related posts
- When you hit an age gate: navigating verification choices and privacy risks
- Why nations should adopt 16 as the minimum age for social media accounts
- OpenSSL’s direction is forcing change for pyca/cryptography