Recall Summary
| Recall number | None |
| Issued by | Issuing agency |
| Date | 2026-07-25 |
| Company | Roku, Inc |
| Units affected | Not disclosed |
| Severity | Not classified |
Remedy: Follow the instructions in the official notice linked below. The agency record for this recall did not contain remedy text we could verify against this product, so we have not reproduced it here.
A growing roku lawsuit docket is taking shape in federal courts across the country, with four separate, individually filed cases against Roku, Inc. verified on the public record as of today. These are not one consolidated proceeding and not a single coordinated action — they are distinct complaints, filed by different parties in different districts, raising very different theories of liability.
This article explains, in plain language, exactly what the verified court record shows, what each category of claim generally means, who may be affected, and what typically happens next as separate filings against one company accumulate.
Case Timeline
Last checked: July 26, 2026
- April 10, 2026 (Latest Activity): Newest lawsuit filed — Parham v. Roku, Inc., S. District of New York (Docket 1:26-cv-02971) (Court Record)
- April 01, 2026 (Other): The U.S. International Trade Commission instituted Section 337 investigation No. 337-TA-3891 into certain display devices, streaming players and components, naming Roku as a respondent on a complaint by InnoTV Labs asserting the same patents at issue in its Western District of Texas case. (Court Record)
- January 13, 2026 (Other): The EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause that Roku engaged in employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADA as to Jolie Parham, the administrative predicate for her later-filed Southern District of New York action. (Court Record)
What the verified roku lawsuit docket actually shows
Four filings are confirmed in the federal court record. Each one is listed below with its court, filing date, and the civil case category the clerk recorded. Nothing beyond what the docket itself reflects is asserted here — no plaintiff descriptions, no damages figures, and no law firm names, because those details are not part of this verified record.
- Parham v. Roku, Inc. — Southern District of New York, filed April 10, 2026, coded 442 Civil Rights: Jobs. View the official court record on CourtListener.
- Terri Else v. Roku, Inc. — Central District of California, filed March 27, 2026. Case type not recorded on the docket sheet.
- Moses v. Roku, Inc. — Southern District of California, filed March 5, 2026, coded 190 Contract: Other.
- InnoTV Labs, LLC v. Roku, Inc. — Western District of Texas, filed March 2, 2026, coded 830 Patent.
That is the complete verified set: four filings, four dockets, three identified case categories and one unrecorded. Any report describing a larger number of pending cases, or characterizing these four as a single unified proceeding, is going beyond what this record supports.
What each case category generally means
Federal courts assign a numeric “nature of suit” code to every civil complaint. The code is an administrative label chosen at filing — it signals the general legal area, not the merits, and it does not describe what any individual plaintiff experienced.
A 442 Civil Rights: Jobs code covers employment-related civil rights claims, the category used for workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation allegations under federal employment statutes. A 190 Contract: Other code covers contract disputes that don’t fit the more specific commercial subcategories. An 830 Patent code covers patent infringement claims, typically brought by a patent holder alleging that a company’s products or systems practice its claimed inventions without a license.
Because the underlying complaints are not summarized in this verified record, the specific factual allegations in each case are not stated here. Readers who want the actual allegations should read the complaints themselves through the court record linked above.
Why a roku lawsuit count is worth watching
Roku has faced sustained regulatory scrutiny over its data collection practices in recent years, entirely separate from the four cases above. State enforcement actions have focused on how the streaming platform gathers and shares viewing habits, voice recordings, and location data — including data associated with children — and how much notice and parental control families actually receive. Florida’s Attorney General publicly detailed those concerns in a state enforcement action; the official announcement from the Florida Attorney General’s office lays out the state’s position.
That regulatory backdrop is context only. None of it is a claim about the four filings on this docket list, and the four verified cases here do not carry privacy nature-of-suit codes. The connection is simply that a company under broad public and regulatory attention often sees unrelated private litigation build alongside it.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
Who may be affected
The categories on this docket sketch three broad groups. An employment civil rights filing concerns the workplace, so current and former employees are the population that category speaks to. A contract filing concerns parties in a commercial or consumer contractual relationship with the company. A patent filing concerns another company asserting intellectual property rights, and typically affects competitors, licensees, and business partners rather than consumers.
Being a member of one of those broad groups does not mean anyone is part of these cases. Each of these four filings involves the specific named parties only. Nothing here creates any right, claim, or participation for anyone else.
What usually happens next when litigation is building
Separately filed cases in different districts follow their own timelines. Typically, the defendant responds with an answer or a motion to dismiss, the court rules on that motion, and surviving claims move into discovery. Patent cases in the Western District of Texas often proceed to a claim construction hearing that shapes the rest of the case. Employment and contract matters frequently resolve privately or through mediation well before trial.
When multiple related federal cases accumulate against one defendant, parties sometimes seek consolidation or transfer so overlapping issues are handled together. Whether that happens here depends entirely on whether the claims overlap — and these four span three unrelated legal areas, which cuts against it.
What to do now
Keep records. If you believe you have a dispute involving the company, preserve employment documents, contracts, purchase and account records, correspondence, billing statements, and any relevant device or account settings history. Contemporaneous records are far more useful than reconstructed memory, and they are easier to gather now than later.
Be aware that legal deadlines exist and they vary. Statutes of limitations differ by claim type, by state, and by whether a federal or state statute applies, and some employment claims require an administrative filing within a short window before a court case can proceed at all. Those deadlines can be short, and missing one can end a claim permanently.
This article is legal information, not legal advice, and it does not create any attorney-client relationship. It makes no prediction about outcomes and no statement about compensation. Anyone with a specific situation should speak with a licensed attorney in their own jurisdiction about their own facts.
Current status of the roku lawsuit filings
All four cases are recent — filed between March 2, 2026, and April 10, 2026 — and appear on the public docket as pending. No judgment, verdict, or finding of liability against Roku, Inc. in any of these four matters is reflected in this verified record. Allegations in a complaint are allegations only until a court resolves them.
Docket activity changes frequently. The most reliable way to track any roku lawsuit named above is to read the docket directly through the CourtListener link in the first section, which pulls from the federal court’s own PACER system rather than from secondary reporting.
Were You Injured by a Recalled Product?
A recall by itself is a safety action, not a legal claim. However, if a recalled product caused a real injury, you may be eligible to pursue compensation. A licensed attorney can review your situation at no upfront cost — most work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you recover.
Official Sources & Resources
Verify every recall against the issuing agency before acting:
- the issuing agency: official recall database — the record of truth for this notice
- CPSC: cpsc.gov — household goods, toys, furniture, appliances
- FDA: fda.gov — food, drugs, and medical devices
- NHTSA: nhtsa.gov — vehicles, tires, and child car seats
- USDA FSIS: fsis.usda.gov — meat, poultry, and egg products
Content last reviewed July 2026. This is general educational information, not legal advice. If you notice outdated information, please contact us.
Related Guides
- All Product Recalls
- All Active MDL Cases
- Mass Tort Explainers
- Mass Tort Tips
- Tort Reform by State — 50-State Comparison
You May Also Like
Attorney Advertising. The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. A product recall is a safety action by a manufacturer or regulator and does not by itself establish liability or create a legal claim. No attorney-client relationship is created by accessing or using this content. Every case is unique. If you believe you were harmed by a recalled product, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.