A federal judge in California has certified a class action lawsuit against Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang, allowing investors who bought stock between August 2017 and November 2018 to pursue claims that the company concealed more than $1 billion in GPU revenue driven by cryptocurrency miners rather than gamers.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class on March 25, 2026, rejecting Nvidia’s argument that its alleged misstatements had no measurable impact on the company’s stock price. The ruling clears the path for a trial-level fight over whether Nvidia deliberately misled shareholders during the 2017-2018 crypto boom.
In May 2022, the SEC fined Nvidia $5.5 million for failing to disclose that crypto mining was a material driver of its gaming GPU revenue in fiscal Q2-Q3 2018. Investor class-action plaintiffs cite the same period of alleged misstatements.
Nvidia Attributed Surging GPU Demand to Gaming While Miners Were Buying
The lawsuit centers on a specific period, August 10, 2017 through November 15, 2018, during which Nvidia’s earnings statements and public guidance repeatedly framed outsized GPU demand as gaming-driven growth. Plaintiffs allege the company and Huang knew that cryptocurrency miners were purchasing a material share of those GPUs, yet failed to disclose it.
The mismatch became visible when crypto markets cooled and mining demand evaporated. On November 15, 2018, CFO Colette Kress acknowledged that “post crypto channel inventory took longer than expected to sell through,” triggering roughly a 28.5% stock decline over two trading sessions.
An earlier warning sign had appeared months before. After Nvidia’s August 16, 2018 earnings call included a guidance cut, the stock fell approximately 4.9%. Investors now argue both drops were the direct result of misstatements that inflated the stock price during the class period.
The core allegation is not that crypto mining is illegitimate, but that Nvidia’s failure to segment crypto-driven revenue from gaming revenue deprived investors of information they needed to accurately assess risk. When the bust came, shareholders bore losses that plaintiffs say were foreseeable and material.
How the Class Action Reached Certification
The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2021 before being revived on appeal and ultimately certified this week. The class covers all investors who purchased Nvidia common stock during the defined class period. Plaintiff law firms Kessler Topaz and Bernstein Litowitz represent the class; Cooley LLP and Milbank LLP represent Nvidia.
Under federal securities law, plaintiffs must prove that Nvidia made material misstatements or omissions, that the misstatements affected the stock price, and that investors suffered losses as a result. The claims fall under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, the standard framework for securities fraud cases involving alleged material misstatements.
Judge Gilliam cited internal executive emails as particularly damaging evidence when rejecting Nvidia’s price impact rebuttal. The ruling means Nvidia failed to demonstrate that its statements about crypto-linked revenue had no effect on the stock price, a key hurdle for blocking class certification.
Nvidia has pushed back on the characterization. A company spokesperson stated that “investors have done incredibly well, as our corporate strategy unfolded as we consistently predicted.” The company has not disclosed a specific defense strategy for the trial phase.
Nvidia shares fell approximately 28.5% over two trading sessions following the November 15, 2018 revenue warning that revealed lingering crypto mining inventory, the largest single disclosure event in the class period.
A Precedent for Crypto Revenue Disclosure
The 2022 SEC enforcement action, which resulted in a $5.5 million fine and a cease-and-desist order, established that Nvidia’s disclosures about crypto mining’s impact on gaming GPU sales were inadequate. That administrative penalty did not resolve private investor claims. The certified class action is now the next legal front.
Renz Chong, a legal analyst quoted by Decrypt, framed the ruling as a warning: “This certification tells every company straddling crypto and AI the same thing: courts will not accept segment-level reporting as a shield when what’s actually driving revenue carries a fundamentally different risk profile from what you’re telling investors.”
The case is notable for what it signals to other GPU makers and tech companies with exposure to crypto-driven demand. Competitors such as AMD also supplied GPUs to miners during the 2017-2018 period, but no comparable class action has been certified against AMD, leaving Nvidia uniquely exposed to trial-level liability for the disclosure practices of that era.
The exact total damages sought by the plaintiff class have not been publicly disclosed. With over $1 billion in allegedly misclassified revenue at the center of the case, the potential liability could be substantial depending on how losses are calculated across the class period.
A case conference is scheduled for April 21, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time. The proceeding will set the timeline for discovery, motions, and a potential trial date.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
