MeetingTV sues Palo Alto Networks over Koi Security report that allegedly misidentified its services as espionage infrastructure

MeetingTV has filed a lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks and its Koi Security team, alleging that a threat-intelligence report wrongly portrayed the startup as part of a Chinese cyberespionage operation.

According to the complaint, Koi Security published a blog post on December 30 that tied MeetingTV’s video conferencing and webinar product to malware activity and corporate espionage. MeetingTV says the report relied on an AI-powered analysis system that generated false connections, which were then presented as factual findings.

Claims in the complaint

The lawsuit says Koi’s research incorrectly linked MeetingTV to a threat actor it called DarkSpectre and described the company’s Zoomcorder service as a public-facing front for criminal activity. MeetingTV disputes those assertions and says the report helped trigger blocks by security vendors and network providers, preventing users from reaching its domains and services.

MeetingTV founder and CEO Michael Robertson said the company learned about the report only after customers began reporting access problems. He also said Koi never contacted MeetingTV before or after publishing the blog post.

• MeetingTV alleges the report was created with little or no human review.
• The company says the false attribution damaged its reputation and business operations.
• It is seeking a retraction and removal of the allegedly defamatory content.

Palo Alto Networks responds

Palo Alto Networks, which completed its acquisition of Koi Security in April, said it is aware of the lawsuit but declined to address the specific allegations. The company said it believes Koi’s research was intended to identify and expose threats, and expects the dispute to be handled through the legal process.

MeetingTV also claims that the original post was later edited to remove references to its product, though it says the damage had already been done. Robertson argued that automated analysis should not be treated as proof without human verification, especially when the conclusions can affect access to online services and a company’s standing with security tools and infrastructure providers.

The case adds to growing debate over the use of AI in security research, particularly when automated systems are used to draw conclusions that can have immediate operational and reputational consequences.