High-Profile Lawsuits That Ended Without a Settlement (2026 Update)

High-Profile Lawsuits That Ended Without a Settlement — and What That Means for You

Not every high-profile lawsuit ends with a settlement fund, a claim form, or a check in the mail. Some of the most famous consumer and copyright cases in recent years simply collapsed: dismissed by a judge, dropped by the parties, or affirmed away on appeal — with no settlement, no payment to anyone, and often no court ruling on whether the underlying claims were true.

If you've been searching for a settlement in one of these cases, the short answer is usually: there is no money to claim. Here is the verified status of the best-known examples, last reviewed September 2026.

1. Taylor Swift's "Shake It Off" Copyright Case

Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Taylor Swift in 2017, alleging the "Shake It Off" chorus copied lines from their 2000 song "Playas Gon' Play" ("playas, they gonna play / and haters, they gonna hate"). The case bounced between dismissal and reinstatement on appeal for years and was headed for trial.

How it ended: On December 12, 2022, roughly a month before trial was set to begin, a federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice at the joint request of both sides. No settlement was ever publicly disclosed, and no court ever ruled on whether the songs were actually similar. After nearly eight years of litigation, the case simply stopped — no payment, no finding, no precedent.

2. Subway's "The Tuna Isn't Tuna" Case

In January 2021, two California residents sued Subway, alleging its tuna sandwiches and wraps contained no actual tuna — pointing to independent lab tests that reportedly found DNA from chicken, pork, or cattle in some samples. The claims included fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

How it ended: After multiple amended complaints — and Subway's aggressive defense, including its SubwayTunaFacts.com campaign arguing that cooking denatures tuna DNA and skews lab results — the plaintiffs moved to drop the case in April 2023. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed it with prejudice in July 2023, meaning it can never be refiled. No settlement was paid and no consumer compensation exists. Subway's demand for over $600,000 in sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorneys was denied.

3. Buffalo Wild Wings' "Boneless Wings"

In 2023, an Illinois man sued Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming "boneless wings" were misleading because they're made from chicken breast, not actual deboned wings — and that he would have paid less or ordered something else had he known.

How it ended: U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. dismissed the case, writing that "boneless wings" is a cooking-style description widely understood by American diners, not a literal anatomy claim — comparing it to how "buffalo wing" often refers to the sauce. The judge agreed the plaintiff plausibly alleged he paid money, but ruled a reasonable consumer would not be deceived. No settlement, no fund, no payout — and Buffalo Wild Wings continues to sell boneless wings under the same name.

4. The GameStop / Robinhood "Short Squeeze" Cases

When Robinhood blocked users from buying GameStop and other meme stocks during the January 2021 trading frenzy, retail investors filed a wave of class actions alleging Robinhood conspired with Citadel Securities and other market makers to protect their own interests at traders' expense.

How it ended: The consolidated litigation (In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation) was dismissed by the district court in 2022, and in July 2024 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal (Case No. 22-11873). Years of litigation produced no settlement for any retail trader — the claims failed as a matter of law before anyone ever reached a trial verdict.

5. Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather & the EthereumMax (EMAX) Case

Investors who bought the EthereumMax (EMAX) token sued its celebrity promoters — including Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, and Paul Pierce — in January 2022, alleging they hyped a pump-and-dump scheme to their massive followings.

How it ended: In January 2023, a federal judge in California dismissed the class action — the court found the disclosures the investors demanded wouldn't have changed their decisions, and even sanctioned the plaintiff's attorney. The investors received nothing from the class action. (Separately, the SEC settled with Kardashian for $1.26 million in 2022 over undisclosed payment for the promotion — that was a regulator action, not the class action, and it did not compensate investors.)

The Flagship Example: Burt's Bees

We cover this case in depth in its own guide: the PFAS "natural" cosmetics class actions against Burt's Bees and Clorox were voluntarily dismissed with no settlement and no claims process, and no court ever ruled on whether the products contained PFAS. See our Burt's Bees lawsuit update.

What These Cases Have in Common

• Dismissal ≠ settlement. Cases end with prejudice (permanently), by joint stipulation, or on appeal — none of which creates a claims process.
• "No court finding" cuts both ways. In several of these cases (Swift, Burt's Bees), no judge ever decided whether the underlying allegations were true. In others (Buffalo Wild Wings, EthereumMax), the judge ruled — for the defendant. Either way, the allegations remain unproven or rejected, not settled.
• Loud filing, quiet ending. Cases that generate headlines when filed often end with a one-line docket entry. There is rarely a press release saying "the case was dismissed and nobody got paid."
• No settlement means no deadline. If there's no settlement, there is no claim deadline, no administrator, and no legitimate reason to submit your information anywhere.

⚠️ If Someone Offers You "Settlement Money" From These Cases

Any website, ad, or caller claiming you can claim compensation from the lawsuits above is not legitimate. There is no settlement fund, no administrator, and no claim form for any of them. Red flags:

• ❌ "Claim your payout" forms for dismissed cases
• ❌ Upfront fees or "registration" to reserve a future payment
• ❌ Requests for your SSN or bank details to "pre-qualify"

See our full guide on how to spot class action scams, and read what a class action is to understand why settlements only exist when a case actually settles.

Related: Two Cases That Took Different Paths

The "no settlement" pattern isn't the only ending — two well-known cases show the other outcomes:

• Miley Cyrus "Flowers" copyright case — still live as of September 2026: Tempo Music Investments sued over "When I Was Your Man," and every dismissal attempt has been rejected. No settlement, no trial yet.
• Nick Sandmann v. Washington Post — the opposite arc: dismissed in 2019, partially revived by the Sixth Circuit, then settled in July 2020 for undisclosed terms (the famous "$250 million" figure was the demand, not the outcome).

FAQ

Q: Why do high-profile lawsuits get dismissed instead of settling?

A: Common reasons: plaintiffs can't produce evidence to survive a motion to dismiss, the legal theory fails (as in the GameStop litigation), the parties privately resolve the matter without money changing hands publicly (as in the Swift case, where terms were never disclosed), or continuing litigation isn't worth the cost. A dismissal ends the case; only an actual settlement creates payouts.

Q: Can these cases be refiled?

A: Usually not. Dismissal with prejudice — as in the Subway tuna case and the Swift case — permanently bars refiling. Dismissal without prejudice (like the Burt's Bees class claims) technically leaves the door open for new plaintiffs, but the same legal problems usually apply.

Q: Did anyone get money in any of these cases?

A: No — not through the class actions. The closest exception is regulatory: the SEC's separate $1.26 million settlement with Kim Kardashian over EthereumMax promotion disclosures went to the government, not to investors.

This page is updated as new information develops. Last reviewed: September 8, 2026.