An Nvidia investor has sued the chipmaker and its chief executive, Jensen Huang, in a federal court in California, alleging that the company misled investors about Huang’s relationship with a Megaspeed executive whom United States officials suspect of working for China.

The proposed class action, Kistenmacher v. NVIDIA Corporation, case number 5:26-cv-13448, was filed on 9 November 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Mark Kistenmacher, is represented by the Rosen Law Firm. The complaint names Nvidia and Huang as defendants and seeks damages on behalf of investors who bought Nvidia securities between 9 October 2025 and 8 November 2026.

Nvidia shares fell by $7.97, or 4.27%, to close at $178.67 on 9 November, the first trading day after the company’s board said it would open an independent investigation. The board announced the inquiry on Sunday 8 November, after reports that Huang had been the target of a foreign intelligence effort. The board said it had no reason to believe that national security or Nvidia secrets had been compromised, and said the inquiry would examine all available information.

What the lawsuit alleges

The complaint alleges that Nvidia described Huang’s dealings with Megaspeed, a Singapore-based cloud company, as routine, without disclosing his relationship with Alice Huang, a Megaspeed executive. United States intelligence officials have concluded that Alice Huang was gathering information for Beijing, according to reports cited in the filing. Megaspeed has been investigated over suspected smuggling of chips into China, which it denies.

The case centres on disclosure and export-control risk. The complaint alleges that investors were not given materially accurate information about the Megaspeed relationship and the risks around AI-chip export controls. It brings a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, which cover material misstatements and omissions in securities disclosures.

None of the allegations has been tested in court, and no class has been certified. The filing sets 8 January 2027 as the deadline for investors seeking appointment as lead plaintiff to move the court. Serving as lead plaintiff is not required to share in any recovery, if there is one.

More law firms circle Nvidia

Separately, the shareholder-rights firm Schall, Brown & Schwartz announced on 9 November that it was investigating claims on behalf of Nvidia investors for possible violations of the securities laws. Its investigation focuses on whether the company issued false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors.

The firm said Nvidia shares fell nearly 5.5% in pre-market trading on 9 November after the New York Times report of 8 November, titled “Nvidia Opens Investigation Into Jensen Huang’s Relationship With Suspected Chinese Spy”. A Stanford securities law professor, Robert Bartlett, said he expected a complaint to be filed, noting the strong incentive for plaintiff firms to file first because the first complaint can trigger a 60-day window for investors to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Other firms, including Levi & Korsinsky, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman and the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, have also said they are looking into claims against Nvidia, according to reports of the filings. An announcement that a firm is investigating does not by itself mean a significant case will follow.

What happens next

Nvidia is due to report quarterly earnings on 17 November, which will give investors their first detailed look at demand since the board inquiry began. The board’s independent review, overseen by independent directors with external legal counsel, has no published timetable.

President Donald Trump said on Monday evening that the FBI was looking into the matter, and added his support for Huang. The legal case and the board inquiry are separate: the board is examining the foreign-intelligence concerns and any possible compromise of secrets, while the federal case focuses on whether investors received accurate disclosures about the Megaspeed relationship and its business risks.

Investors will now watch the Northern District of California docket for further filings, and for any response from Nvidia to the lawsuit. Until the court tests the claims, they remain allegations, and the share-price fall on 9 November does not by itself prove that any disclosure was misleading.