Blaize $50M ‘Bogus Deal’ & Datavault AI Short Reports Trigger Class Actions: Robbins LLP Recovers $1B+

On June 12, 2026, shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announced investigations into two AI-centric companies—Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) and Datavault AI Inc. (NASDAQ: DVLT)—for potential securities law violations and fiduciary duty breaches. Both announcements stem from detailed short-seller reports that triggered sharp stock declines, underscoring a broader trend of increased scrutiny on AI hype and executive conduct. For Blaize, an edge computing AI provider, two short-seller reports published within two days in late April 2026 alleged that the company had “artificially boosted its share price by engaging in a bogus deal with a 4-month-old counterparty, NeoTensr, whose website featured ‘products’ that appeared to be photoshopped to add the Blaize logo.” The deal, which Blaize claimed was expected to generate up to $50 million in revenue, was characterized as a sham aimed at inflating the company’s valuation. Following the reports, BZAI stock declined sharply, prompting Robbins LLP to explore whether officers misled investors about the material nature of the agreement. Meanwhile, Datavault AI—a data sciences firm that touts AI, quantum computing, Web 3.0, and blockchain capabilities—is under investigation after a Wolfpack Research report on October 31, 2025, labeled it a “stock promotion” with misleading press releases, empty technological claims, and an inactive blockchain marketplace. Wolfpack also raised concerns about leadership affiliations with a convicted felon. After the report, DVLT also fell. These parallel actions highlight a growing legal vulnerability for companies that leverage AI and emerging technology narratives without sufficient operational backing. The lead plaintiff deadlines in both cases provide a procedural mechanism for shareholders with significant losses to steer the litigation. Robbins LLP, which has recovered over $1 billion for shareholders since 2002, positions itself as a primary vehicle for such collective redress. The stakes are material: the allegations go beyond typical securities pleading, painting a picture of fabricated partnerships and exaggerated technical capabilities in a sector where investor enthusiasm often outpaces hard due diligence. From a market perspective, the cascading effect of short-seller activism in the AI space could dampen valuations across the board. Blaize’s case is particularly notable because it zeroes in on a single contract worth $50 million—a figure small enough to slip under routine audit but large enough to signal existential growth. The photoshopped logo allegation adds a forensic detail that many short reports lack, potentially strengthening the plaintiff’s argument of fraudulent intent. Datavault’s situation, while broader in its accusations of pervasive buzzword abuse, also touches on governance red flags like felon associations. Both investigations invite comparisons to prior securities class actions against tech firms that settled for substantial sums after similar short-seller exposures. For investors, the immediate question is whether these claims can survive a motion to dismiss and reach discovery. The early timing of Robbins LLP’s outreach suggests the firm believes loss causation is demonstrable given the stock price reaction. Looking ahead, the outcomes may influence how AI companies structure partnership announcements and describe their technology. With regulatory bodies increasingly attentive to AI washing, civil litigation could become a parallel enforcement mechanism, reinforcing the need for verifiable product claims and transparent board oversight. As the lead plaintiff deadlines approach, market participants will closely watch whether institutional investors step forward to consolidate claims, which could accelerate settlement dynamics.