Will the Lowery v. OpenAI/Twilio motion to dismiss be denied by September 2026?

The Q4 2025 earnings provided zero litigation updates, meaning the factual basis for this market is unchanged from the initial prediction. The key new information is that Voice AI revenue is growing above 60% YoY (accelerating from ~60%), which makes the product category more commercially material but does not change the legal posture of the case. The resolution criteria still requires either an MTD ruling by Sep 30, 2026 (timing risk ~25%) or the case proceeding — and partial denial resolves YES. The FCC Declaratory Ruling (Feb 2024) classifying AI voices under TCPA remains the strongest statutory foundation. With the case now ~6 weeks old (filed Dec 29, 2025), we are still in the pre-briefing phase. The timeline is tight but feasible for a ruling by Sep 30. The calibration feedback showing our ensemble was overconfident on the guidance market (0.4624 Brier) suggests we should be cautious about overweighting narrative framing, but this market is driven by legal process, not management behavior — so that calibration error is less transferable.

I'm weighting the timing dimension more heavily in this update. The case is now 6.5 weeks old. In multi-defendant federal cases with novel legal theories, the typical sequence is: defendant answer or MTD filing (~60-90 days from complaint), plaintiff opposition (~30 days), defendant reply (~15 days), then judicial deliberation (~2-6 months). Even on an accelerated schedule, the earliest realistic ruling is May-June 2026. The Sep 30 deadline leaves meaningful but not generous margin. I estimate ~28% probability of no ruling by the deadline, which is slightly higher than my initial 25% because additional time has passed without docket activity being reported. On the merits, the partial denial mechanism remains the strongest factor favoring YES — TCPA statutory claims with FCC regulatory backing should survive even if the novel joint liability theory is dismissed. But the second-order effect of accelerating Voice AI revenue is interesting: it increases Twilio's incentive to fight aggressively on the MTD, potentially resulting in more thorough briefing that takes longer.

Taking a second-order perspective: the Q4 earnings showed Twilio's Voice AI category growing above 60% with ConversationRelay expanding off a small base and branded calling revenue up ~6x. This makes the outcome of this case more consequential for Twilio's business trajectory — but it does not change the probability of the legal outcome itself. The FCC TCPA rulemaking final rule is still expected H1 2026, and if it tightens the AI voice framework before the MTD ruling, it strengthens the plaintiff's position. The calibration feedback is relevant in one respect: the ensemble's 0.4624 Brier on the guidance market stemmed from overweighting CEO framing vs. established patterns. For this market, the analogous risk is overweighting the 'novelty' framing that suggests unpredictability vs. the established pattern that TCPA claims with FCC backing survive MTD at high rates. The FCC Declaratory Ruling is the pattern match, and partial denial is the high-probability pathway. I nudge slightly upward from the initial prediction.

The Q4 2025 earnings call provided no litigation updates, and the prediction context confirms that the signal status for REGULATORY_EXPOSURE remains ELEVATED (confirmed). The core factors are unchanged: partial denial resolves YES (lower bar), FCC Declaratory Ruling provides statutory foundation, and timing risk of ~25% is the primary drag. The Voice AI growth acceleration (above 60%) makes the case more material to Twilio's business but does not change the legal probability. The resolved sibling markets show the ensemble was well-calibrated on quantitative metrics (organic growth Brier 0.0121, gross margin Brier 0.1156) but poorly calibrated on management behavioral predictions (guidance Brier 0.4624). This market is closer to a legal process question than a management behavior question, so the calibration feedback is only moderately applicable. Maintaining the previous estimate with minimal adjustment.

I'm applying the calibration feedback more cautiously. The ensemble's 0.4624 Brier score on the FY2026 guidance market was its worst result, driven by overconfidence in a 68% probability that proved wrong. The lesson is that when our ensemble is near 50-50 on uncertain outcomes, we should resist the temptation to push probabilities away from 50% based on moderate evidence. This market is inherently uncertain — the committee itself acknowledged it could not quantify the probability of adverse outcome, and the case involves genuinely novel legal theory. The timing constraint adds another layer of uncertainty: even if the merits favor partial denial (~65% conditional probability), the ~28% timing risk pulls the unconditional probability back toward 47%. The FCC Declaratory Ruling is the strongest anchor favoring YES, but one should not overweight a single regulatory action in predicting judicial behavior.

Balancing the competing factors: the FCC Declaratory Ruling provides strong statutory grounding (favors YES), timing risk of ~25-28% is real (favors NO/unresolved), partial denial resolves YES (lowers the bar), and the case involves two defendants with potentially different liability theories (increases partial denial probability). The Q4 earnings data is marginally relevant — Voice AI acceleration means ConversationRelay is becoming more commercially significant, which increases the stakes but not the legal probability. The absence of any litigation commentary in earnings is neutral — companies typically don't comment on pending litigation beyond boilerplate disclosures. The FCC TCPA rulemaking expected H1 2026 remains a potential catalyst that could affect the merits before the ruling. Slight lean toward YES based on the partial denial mechanism and FCC statutory backing, but genuine uncertainty keeps this near 50-50.

No new litigation data from Q4 earnings. Core factors unchanged: partial denial resolves YES, FCC Declaratory Ruling provides statutory basis, timing risk ~25-28%. Voice AI growth acceleration is commercially material but legally irrelevant. The case is now about 6.5 weeks old with a Sep 30 deadline. The ruling timeline is feasible but tight. Maintaining near the previous estimate of 0.52.

Applying stronger timing discount. Multi-defendant case with novel legal theory filed Dec 29, 2025. Two defendants need separate briefing schedules. Novel theories require more careful judicial deliberation. Eight months from filing to deadline is tight. I estimate ~32% timing risk. Even with ~65% merits probability of denial when ruling occurs, the effective probability is approximately 0.44-0.48. The calibration feedback reinforces caution — our ensemble was overconfident on the guidance market, and we should generally resist overconfidence near the 50% zone.

The FCC Declaratory Ruling (Feb 2024) classifying AI voices under TCPA transforms this from a purely novel theory into a statutory application with regulatory backing. Courts are generally reluctant to dismiss statutory claims before discovery when the regulatory framework supports the plaintiff's theory. The partial denial mechanism means even if the novel joint liability theory is dismissed, standard TCPA claims may survive. Timing risk of ~25% is real but the case timeline (filed Dec 29, ruling plausible by Jul-Sep) is feasible. Slight lean toward YES.