Collective Claim

Class Actions

Snowflake Data Breach Litigation: MDL 3126 Status

The Snowflake data breach lawsuits are centralized in MDL No. 3126 in the District of Montana. Two client settlements were approved; the rest is undecided.

By Published Updated 10 min read

Document-style illustration of a federal court docket page beside a cloud storage diagram
Document-style illustration of a federal court docket page beside a cloud storage diagram
On this page

Something in this article wrong, out of date, or missing its source? Send the editorial desk a note.

The Snowflake data breach litigation is centralized in MDL No. 3126 in the District of Montana before Chief Judge Brian Morris. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the proceeding by a transfer order filed October 8, 2024, covering 45 actions in eight districts that arose from a cluster of breaches on the Snowflake cloud platform between roughly April and June 2024. The Panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists 72 actions pending of 105 filed. One claim against Snowflake filed by Advance Auto Parts customers settled for a $10 million fund that the court finally approved on October 23, 2025, and the Neiman Marcus settlement received preliminary approval the same year. No court has decided whether Snowflake or any client defendant was at fault.

At a glance

  • MDL No. 3126, In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, is pending in the District of Montana before Chief Judge Brian Morris (transfer order filed October 8, 2024).
  • The Panel’s October 1, 2026 statistics report lists 72 actions pending of 105 filed.
  • The court finally approved a $10 million Advance Auto Parts settlement on October 23, 2025 (Doc. 585), including $3,333,000 in attorneys’ fees.
  • The Neiman Marcus settlement, a $3,500,000 non-reversionary fund, received preliminary approval on May 22, 2025 (Doc. 437); no final approval order appears in the reviewed record.
  • The class cases against Snowflake by the Advance Auto and Neiman Marcus groups were dismissed with prejudice on December 19, 2025 (Docs. 614 and 615).

What is the Snowflake data breach litigation?

The litigation concerns a group of data breaches that the Panel’s transfer order describes as a cluster of breaches of the Snowflake cloud platform between approximately April and June 2024. The order states that a threat actor allegedly stole data belonging to certain Snowflake clients, including AT&T, Advance Auto Parts, Cricket Wireless, Ticketmaster and Live Nation, The Neiman Marcus Group, and LendingTree’s QuoteWizard.com subsidiary, and that the breaches allegedly resulted in the exfiltration of the personal information of over 500 million individuals. That figure is the complaint allegation as the Panel recorded it, not a finding.

The central defendant in MDL No. 3126 is a data platform, not the company whose customer records were taken. The Panel’s order quotes the common allegation that Snowflake operates within a shared responsibility cybersecurity model and is jointly responsible with its corporate clients for protecting the information held on its platform. All actions allege that Snowflake and the client defendants failed to safeguard personal information, failed to implement adequate data security measures, and failed to give timely notice of the breach, according to the same order. The court’s page quotes the Panel’s finding that Snowflake’s security practices would be a particularly important issue in all actions.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed: that the Panel created MDL No. 3126 on October 8, 2024 and assigned it to the District of Montana; that the court approved an operative representative complaint and stayed the remaining claims on January 14, 2025; that the court finally approved the Advance Auto Parts settlement on October 23, 2025; that it preliminarily approved the Neiman Marcus settlement on May 22, 2025 for a $3,500,000 fund; that it dismissed the Advance Auto and Neiman Marcus claims against Snowflake with prejudice on December 19, 2025; and the action count in the Panel’s October 1, 2026 report.

Alleged, not decided: that Snowflake’s security practices were inadequate; that it bore joint responsibility for its clients’ data; that any defendant failed to give timely notice; that the breaches harmed any specific person; and the total number of people whose information was taken.

Not recorded in the documents reviewed: a finding of liability against Snowflake or any client defendant, a certified class in the cases that remain, a trial date, or a final approval order for the Neiman Marcus settlement.

Where the claims stand procedurally

MDL No. 3126 is a consolidated pretrial proceeding, not a class action in itself. The Panel transferred the listed cases to one judge for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Individual lawsuits keep their identities, and the transferee court manages discovery, expert issues and pretrial motions across all of them. Our guide to how an MDL differs from a class action explains the distinction.

The January 14, 2025 case management order let the plaintiffs file an operative, representative complaint setting out priority claims, and ordered that all claims already filed in the MDL that were not included in that complaint be stayed until the priority claims are resolved. That structure is why one client settlement does not end the proceeding: the stayed claims remain.

What the court approved in the Advance Auto Parts settlement

The final approval order, Doc. 585, was entered October 23, 2025 after a hearing the same day. It finally certified a settlement class of all persons in the United States whose private information was potentially compromised as a result of the data incident and who were sent notice of it, estimated at approximately 2.3 million people.

The claim deadline was October 8, 2025. The order states that all class members who submitted valid claims will receive benefits under the settlement and that those who did not submit a claim are still bound by it. Class members who did not submit a claim lose the money, not the release.

What the Neiman Marcus settlement covers

The amended preliminary approval order, Doc. 437, entered May 22, 2025, preliminarily approved a $3,500,000 non-reversionary common fund settlement between the Neiman Marcus group of plaintiffs and The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, and provisionally certified a class of all persons living in the United States whose personal information was potentially compromised as a result of the data incident. It scheduled the final approval hearing for October 23, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Butte, Montana. The court’s MDL page lists no final approval order for Neiman Marcus. The documents reviewed therefore do not show whether that settlement was finally approved, and this article does not assume that it was.

Separately, on December 19, 2025 the court granted two joint motions, raised by Snowflake together with named plaintiffs, dismissing the claims that the Advance Auto and Neiman Marcus groups had asserted against Snowflake, with prejudice. The orders, Docs. 615 and 614, do not state a payment by Snowflake, and the documents reviewed contain no such figure.

Key dates

  • April to June 2024: the period in which the Panel’s order says the cluster of breaches allegedly occurred on the Snowflake platform.
  • May 23, 2024: Advance Auto Parts discovers that an unauthorized party gained access to its Snowflake cloud storage application, according to the final approval order.
  • June 24, 2024: the first of 11 putative class actions against Advance Auto Parts is filed, per the same order.
  • July 23 and July 29, 2024: plaintiffs file competing centralization motions, docketed as MDL Nos. 3124 and 3126, per the transfer order.
  • October 8, 2024: the Panel files the transfer order creating MDL No. 3126 in the District of Montana before Chief Judge Brian Morris and denies a separate AT&T MDL.
  • January 14, 2025: the court orders that an operative representative complaint may be filed and stays all claims not included in it (Doc. 285).
  • February 3, 2025: the representative class action complaint is filed, per the final approval order.
  • March 2025: the parties reach a settlement in principle with Advance Auto Parts, per the final approval order.
  • May 22, 2025: the court preliminarily approves the Advance Auto Parts and Neiman Marcus settlements (Docs. 436 and 437).
  • October 23, 2025: the court holds the final approval hearing and finally approves the Advance Auto Parts settlement (Doc. 585).
  • December 19, 2025: the court dismisses the Advance Auto and Neiman Marcus claims against Snowflake with prejudice (Docs. 615 and 614).
  • October 1, 2026: the Panel’s report lists 72 actions pending of 105 filed.

What this does not establish

The existence of MDL No. 3126 does not mean a court has found that Snowflake’s security was inadequate, that it shared responsibility for its clients’ data in law, or that any client defendant failed to give timely notice. The complaints allege those things, and the transfer order repeats them to explain centralization.

The figure of over 500 million affected individuals appears in the complaints and in the Panel’s summary of them. No reviewed document counts the people actually affected, and the 2.3 million estimate in the Advance Auto Parts settlement class covers that one client’s incident.

People who receive a message about a Snowflake payout should check it against the court record. Our guide to verifying settlement notices describes how to do that. Related coverage of other consolidated breach proceedings includes the AT&T customer data breach litigation, the 23andMe data breach litigation and the PowerSchool data breach litigation. The class action section collects the rest.

Frequently asked questions

What is MDL No. 3126?

MDL No. 3126 is the federal multidistrict proceeding for lawsuits about a cluster of data breaches on the Snowflake cloud platform between roughly April and June 2024. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created it by a transfer order filed October 8, 2024 and assigned it to Chief Judge Brian Morris in the District of Montana.

Who is being sued in the Snowflake data breach litigation?

The defendants named in the transfer order are Snowflake Inc.; AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC; Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and Advance Stores Company, Inc.; Cricket Wireless, LLC; Ticketmaster LLC and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.; The Neiman Marcus Group; and LendingTree LLC and QuoteWizard.com LLC.

Has there been a settlement in the Snowflake data breach litigation?

Yes, for two client defendants. The District of Montana granted final approval to a $10 million Advance Auto Parts settlement on October 23, 2025, and preliminarily approved a $3,500,000 Neiman Marcus settlement on May 22, 2025. No final approval order for the Neiman Marcus settlement appears in the documents reviewed.

How many cases are in MDL No. 3126?

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s October 1, 2026 statistics report lists 72 actions pending of 105 filed. The count can change as cases transfer, settle or are dismissed.

Is Snowflake itself facing a class action?

Yes. Snowflake is a defendant in MDL No. 3126, and the common allegation in the complaints is that it shared responsibility with its clients for the security of data held on its platform. On December 19, 2025 the court dismissed the Advance Auto Parts and Neiman Marcus claims against Snowflake with prejudice, and the proceedings on the remaining claims continue.

Sources

  1. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Transfer Order, In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3126 (filed October 8, 2024)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  2. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending (October 1, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  3. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Docket Summary Listing by MDL Number (October 1, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  4. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Snowflake, Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3126 (court page)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  5. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Case Management Order Regarding Form of the Complaint, Order of Preliminary Motions, and Initial Disclosures, No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 285, filed January 14, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  6. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Advance Auto Parts), No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 436, filed May 22, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  7. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (The Neiman Marcus Group), No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 437, filed May 22, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  8. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Award (Advance Auto Parts), No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 585, filed October 23, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  9. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims by Advance Auto Plaintiffs Against Defendant Snowflake Inc. With Prejudice, No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 615, filed December 19, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  10. United States District Court, District of Montana: “Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims by Neiman Marcus Plaintiffs Against Defendant Snowflake Inc. With Prejudice, No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (Doc. 614, filed December 19, 2025)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)

Collective Claim publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.

Related coverage

Tell us about your situation

Share a few details so a law firm that handles this kind of case can consider them. Submitting this form does not create an attorney–client relationship, does not mean a claim exists, and does not guarantee representation or compensation. We are not a law firm and cannot advise you. Corrections, source documents and press enquiries come through the same form.

Step 1 of 4

What is your message about?

Choose the closest match. You can change it at any point.

Who should we reply to?

Required, so that a firm reviewing your inquiry can reach you. Give the number you actually answer.

Your message

A short summary is enough. If you are reporting a correction, name the article and the sentence.

Please do not send confidential or privileged information. This form is not encrypted end to end, and nothing sent through it is protected by attorney–client privilege. Do not include medical records, Social Security or account numbers, or details you would only share with your own lawyer. Link to a public document instead.

Check and send
About
—
Name
—
Email
—
Phone
—
Message
—

Use Back to change anything before sending.

We use what you send only to answer you and, where relevant, to correct or source an article. We do not add you to a mailing list, we do not sell or share your details, and we do not pass them to lawyers or claims companies. See the privacy policy and what we can and cannot help with.

Related reading

This article's claims are tied to the 10 sources listed in the Sources section above. Primary documents are used wherever available; secondary reporting is labelled as such.

Snowflake, data breach, MDL No. 3126, class action