The leading manufacturer of GPUs & computing hardware Nvidia has filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class-action legal case alleging that the firm misrepresented over $1 Bln in sales within 2017 and 2018.
Moreover, in addition to its popular ‘GeForce’ & ’GTX’ products – favoured by both gamers as well as crypto miners – Nvidia launched a GPU specifically designed for digital currency mining referred ‘Crypto SKU’ in May 2017.
However, Nvidia revealed that solely its Crypto SKU sales as having been made to crypto miners, and investors claim this misrepresented $1.126 Bln in other sales as having been driven by demand from the gaming market.
In the motion to dismiss, Nvidia asserts that statements issued by its executives made it clear to investors at the time that it is impossible to understand the exact purpose for what the customers were purchasing the GPUs.
Selling GPUs For Mining Purposes
Nvidia cites an 16th August, 2018 earnings call within which the firm’s founder and CEO Jensen Huang stated “whether they purchase it for mining or for gaming, it’s quite hard to say” in regard to the firm’s GeForce GPU sales.
As such, Nvidia claims that its executives didn’t lie when they described crypto sales as representing a “small” portion of its revenue, as alleged within the filed lawsuit.
The firm also emphasizes that the first complaint was dismissed due to the allegations relying “entirely” on a report published by Prysm Group — with the court rejecting the suit on the idea of the plaintiffs’ failure to plead in favor of the “assumptions and analysis” laid out at the Prysm report.
Nvidia Sales Authored By Renowned Consulting Company
Similarly, Nvidia asserts that the amended complaint fails by counting on the findings from a 2018 report into the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the firm’s sales that was authored by consulting company Jon Peddie Research:
“The Jon Peddie estimate rests on a number of unidentified and unexplained assumptions and inputs, which the [first amended complaint] doesn’t allege that Prysm investigated at the least. This renders Prysm’s analysis even less reliable than before.”
The firm also claims that the complaint selectively quotes its executives to mischaracterize states made concerning its GPU sales, and fails to deal with shortcoming previously identified by the judge.