News

Equity Shouldn’t End in Court: Oura’s Lawsuits in the Age of AI Scrutiny

Oura is facing three high-profile lawsuits over disputed stock option promises, each unfolding in different jurisdictions. AI has shifted the balance of power, claimants can now find compliance gaps instantly.

Maor Levran

CEO

 min read
August 12, 2025
Table of contents
Share This Article

TL;DR

  • Oura is facing three high-profile lawsuits over disputed stock option promises, each unfolding in different jurisdictions.
  • Common failures: missing board approvals, referencing non-existent equity plans, unclear arbitration clauses, and vague verbal commitments.
  • Cross-border equity disputes multiply legal costs, complexity, and reputational risk.
  • AI has shifted the balance of power, claimants can now find compliance gaps instantly.

The Headlines No Company Wants to Make

In recent months, Oura Health, the company behind the popular Oura Ring, has been pulled into three separate lawsuits from high-profile figures over disputed stock option promises.

Former NFL quarterback Drew Brees, physician and podcaster Dr. Peter Attia, and marketer-investor Gordy Bal each claim they were promised equity for promotional or advisory work, equity that Oura later disclaimed, citing missing board approvals and compliance failures.

The legal, reputational, and operational risks in Oura’s disputes are a cautionary tale and one that plays out far too often. These outcomes are the predictable result of manual processes, casual promises, and jurisdictional blind spots in global equity management that catch companies off guard every day.

In today’s business environment where more companies are going global from the start, equity must be treated as what it truly is: a binding legal instrument that demands proper governance, airtight documentation, and cross-border compliance from day one.

What Happened: Stock Option Disputes

Oura has recently been drawn into multiple legal disputes over historical equity commitments made during its early growth stages.

In each instance, the common thread is the same: stock options were promised without fully following governance procedures, ensuring documentation accuracy, or adapting to cross-border legal requirements.

In some cases, agreements referenced outdated or non-existent equity plans, creating uncertainty over which plan and which dispute resolution terms should apply.

The result has been a mix of court proceedings and international arbitration, underscoring how quickly informal equity arrangements can escalate into high-stakes legal disputes when they aren’t backed by proper approvals, accurate records, and compliance with every jurisdiction involved.

Why This Matters: Equity Is a Legal Instrument

In many early-stage startups, equity is still treated like a handshake deal, promised casually in a meeting or chat, with paperwork added later, if at all. Add the complexity of cross-border operations, and those shaky promises can quickly become unenforceable, non-compliant, or outright illegal.

In Oura’s case, the company’s defense hinges on a core principle of Finnish corporate law: only the board of directors can authorize the issuance of equity. Promises made by a CEO or founder, no matter how genuinely stated, carry no legal weight without formal board approval. Without it, there’s no valid equity grant, regardless of what was said or assumed.

This is a critical failure point: where internal workflows fail to meet external legal requirements, thus forcing even well-intentioned agreements to unravel into costly, public disputes.

Manual Equity Workflows Are a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen

If equity is managed on spreadsheets, approved verbally, or handled without coordinated oversight from Legal, HR, and Finance, the risk of disputes skyrockets. These are the most common failure points in high-profile equity disputes:

1. Governance Gaps

Equity grants must be legally authorized. Board approvals, compliance with corporate law, and proper documentation are non-negotiable. A verbal commitment, no matter how sincere, has no enforceable weight without formal authorization.

With Slice, every grant runs through jurisdiction-specific approval workflows and is documented automatically, ensuring enforceability everywhere.

2. Jurisdictional Blind Spots

What’s valid in one country can be void or even illegal in another. In Oura’s case, one claim is in U.S. court, another in Finnish arbitration, and a third in yet another jurisdiction, forcing the company to fight on multiple fronts.

With Slice’s global-first compliance engine, governance and documentation are standardized across every jurisdiction, preventing disputes from splintering.

3. Ambiguous Paperwork

Referencing the wrong equity plan or one that doesn’t exist, isn’t a harmless clerical slip up. In Drew Brees’ case, his agreement cited an “Equity Plan 2018” that never existed. That single error forced the courts to decide whether the 2016 or 2019 plan applied, ultimately pulling him into arbitration. This one misplaced reference turned a straightforward equity promise into a costly, public, legal detour.

Slice ties every agreement to the correct plan, with automated checks that prevent such errors before signing.

4. Unclear Dispute Resolution

Arbitration clauses are only as effective as their precision. Oftentimes, companies fail to define exactly who is bound by it, under what circumstances it applies, and in which jurisdiction disputes will be heard. The result? The same underlying equity issue can play out in entirely different venues, with conflicting timelines, procedures, and outcomes. Without precise, jurisdiction-specific language, what was meant to simplify disputes can end up multiplying them.

Slice standardizes dispute resolution terms per jurisdiction, ensuring clarity and enforceability.

5. Promissory Equity Without Valuation

Early-stage equity offers are often made in broad, informal terms such as: “You’ll get 1%” or “You’ll have skin in the game.”” But without a formal valuation and legally binding grant documents, these vague commitments are a ticking time bomb. When the company grows and that 1% suddenly carries real value, the lack of clear terms turns goodwill into a financial liability, and informal promises into full-scale legal battles.

Slice ensures every grant is backed by accurate valuations, legal agreements, and tax-optimized structures.

AI Has Ended the Era of Hidden Equity Mistakes

The most underappreciated shift in the equity landscape is how much power has moved into the hands of employees, advisors, and investors. With AI tools, legal databases, and expert systems, anyone can analyze contracts, uncover compliance gaps, and understand their rights in seconds.

The days when equity mistakes could hide behind obscure filings or legalese are over. For employers, that means missteps are more visible, actionable, and winnable for claimants. If your workflows aren’t audit-ready, AI will find the cracks.

From AI Exposure to AI Protection: Rethinking Equity Management

AI has shifted the balance of power in equity disputes. The same technology that empowers employees, advisors, and investors to find compliance gaps in seconds can and will be used to scrutinize every equity promise you’ve made. It’s no longer a question of if those gaps will be found, but when.

Just as cybersecurity emerged to counter against increasingly sophisticated hackers, AI-native equity management is now essential to guard against this new wave of AI-enabled scrutiny. If AI can uncover weaknesses in your equity governance, you need AI working just as hard to protect it.

That’s why we built Slice. The only AI-native equity platform built from the ground up for global companies.

How Slice Protects You

At the core of the Slice platform is SliceAI, our proprietary deep-research agent trained on the laws and tax codes of 60+ countries.

It continuously cross-references this intelligence with your HR and cap table data including engagement type, country of residence, and nationality  to ensure every grant is compliant and tax-optimized from day one.

Slice integrates seamlessly with HR systems like Rippling, Workday, and BambooHR, connecting Legal, HR, and Finance in a single source of truth. Our multi-country workflows automate the entire lifecycle of an equity grant, from board approvals to jurisdiction-specific agreements, while ensuring compliance with local laws and tax regulations everywhere you operate.

With Slice, you get:

  • Built-in Global Compliance Engine that closes governance and documentation gaps before they happen.
  • Automated, multi-country workflows that remove manual handoffs and reduce risk.
  • Real-time alerts for dual nationality and cross-border compliance triggers.
  • AI-driven onboarding that scans historical records for past compliance risks.
  • Proprietary legal-grade knowledge base delivering instant, jurisdiction-specific answers to complex equity questions.

In a world where claimants can use AI to uncover your equity missteps, Slice puts that same intelligence on your side  turning potential disputes into fully compliant, well-documented non-events.

Don’t wait for a lawsuit to force an audit of your equity practices.

Book a demo today and make equity management truly global, compliant, and future-proof from day one.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What was the core issue in Oura’s lawsuits?
The disputes center on stock options promised without formal board approval, correct documentation, or compliance with jurisdiction-specific laws. In some cases, agreements referenced equity plans that didn’t exist, creating confusion and opening the door to legal challenges.

Q: Why are jurisdictional differences such a big risk?
What’s valid in one country can be void or even illegal in another. Without a global-first approach, disputes can splinter into separate cases across multiple jurisdictions, each with different rules, costs, and timelines — as happened in Oura’s case.

Q: How has AI changed the equity compliance landscape?
AI tools allow claimants to analyze contracts, identify missing approvals, and uncover compliance gaps in seconds. This makes equity missteps more visible, actionable, and winnable for plaintiffs — and raises the stakes for companies relying on outdated systems.

Q: How does Slice help prevent these disputes?
Slice’s AI-native compliance engine standardizes governance, documentation, and jurisdiction-specific rules across 60+ countries. It automates multi-country workflows, integrates with HR platforms, and generates legally compliant agreements — preventing the governance gaps, documentation errors, and compliance oversights that lead to disputes.

Q: Can Slice identify past compliance issues?
Yes. Slice’s AI-driven onboarding scans historical records to detect and flag prior governance or compliance risks, enabling companies to fix issues before they become lawsuits.

In today's competitive tech landscape, attracting and retaining top talent across borders is crucial for startup success. For companies with a growing presence in Sweden, navigating the complexities of equity compensation can be a significant hurdle. This is where Qualified Employee Stock Options (QESOs) become critical. Although implementing QESOs involves navigating numerous requirements, the substantial tax advantages make them a highly rewarding solution for both companies and employees.

What are QESOs?

Qualified Employee Stock Options (QESOs) are a type of stock option specifically designed for companies with a Swedish presence to incentivize employees with equity in the company. The beauty of QESOs lies in their favorable tax treatment for both the company and the employee:

  • Employee Benefits: Employees enjoy tax-free grants and are only taxed on capital gains at upon sale, typically at a rate of 25%.
  • Company Benefits: Companies benefit from reduced social security contributions compared to traditional non-qualified stock options.

Difference Between QESOs and Non-Qualified Stock Options in Sweden

When considering stock options, it's essential to understand the differences between QESOs and non-qualified stock options in Sweden:

  • Tax Event: For non-qualified stock options, there is a tax event upon exercise. Employees are taxed at progresive tax rate ranging between 30%-55% on the difference between the market price and the exercise price at the time of exercise.
  • Withholding Obligation: Employers have a withholding obligation for non-qualified stock options. Employers must withhold the appropriate tax amount through salary in the month following the exercise.
  • Social Security Contributions: Non-qualified stock options include a social security contribution obligation at a rate of 31.42%.

Key Requirements for QESOs

To benefit from the generous tax rules associated with QESOs, several strict requirements must be met. Here are the ten essential criteria for companies, stock options, and option holders:

Qualifying Conditions for Companies

  1. Fewer than 150 employees.
  2. No more than SEK 280 million in net Sales or balance sheet total.
  3. The company’s operations must not be older than 10 years.
  4. The company must not primarily engage in asset management, banking, financing, insurance, coal or steel production, real estate trading, long-term rental, or services related to legal advice, accounting, or auditing (“excluded activities”) for 3 consecutive years before the grant.
  5. Company must not be traded on a public stock market.
  6. Company cannot be direcly or indirectly controlled by a governmental body.
  7. The company must not be in financial difficulties.
  8. Company cannot be purely a holding company, and must undertake trade operations

Qualifying Conditions for Employees

  1. Be an employee or board member of the granting company or any subsidiary.
  2. Work a minimum of 75% of their working hours for the granting company or any subsidiary.
  3. Must earn a minimum salary of 13 “income base amounts” during the vesting period of 3 years after the grant date. The income base amount in 2024 is SEK 76,200.
  4. Employee, together with closely related affiliates, cannot own more than 5% of the voting rights or share capital of the granting company.

Beyond QESOs: Comparative Analysis

If you're familiar with the UK's Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) scheme, you'll find striking similarities between QESOs and EMIs. Both programs have similar conditions and are designed to optimize tax benefits and encourage employee ownership, making them highly attractive for startups and growing companies looking to incentivize their workforce.

However, there are key distinctions that set QESOs apart, providing unique advantages:

  • No Limit on Exercise Price: One of the most notable advantages of QESOs over EMIs is the absence of a cap on the exercise price. This means that employees can potentially benefit more from their options, as there are no restrictions on the price at which options can be exercised. This flexibility allows for greater potential for value creation, particularly in rapidly growing companies where share prices can increase significantly over time.
  • Enhanced Flexibility and Applicability: The absence of exercise price restrictions allows for more customized compensation packages, appealing to a broader range of businesses and making QESOs a more versatile option across various sectors and stages of development.

Slice's Approach to QESO Management

At Slice, we offer a comprehensive solution for managing QESOs for Swedish employees, ensuring a streamlined and efficient process from creation through sale. Here's how we can assist:

  • Value Alerts: We provide real-time alerts on the value of options upon grant, both for the company and the option holder. This ensures the company does not exceed the option value limitations. 
  • Exercise Period Management: Our platform tracks and manages exercise periods, ensuring timely notifications and helping option holders maximize their benefits within the allowed timeframe.
  • Scope of Work Conditions: We monitor and enforce the scope of work conditions, ensuring compliance with employment and work hour requirements for QESO This helps maintain eligibility for tax benefits and other advantages.
  • Relationship Management: Whether the option holder is an employee, board member, or has another type of relationship with the company, we ensure all relevant criteria and conditions are met and tracked accurately.

With Slice, managing QESOs becomes a seamless experience, allowing both companies and option holders to focus on growth and success.

Conclusion – Investing the Time to Grant QESOs in Sweden is Worth It!

Although granting QESOs in Sweden requires understanding the tax rules, company requirements, and employee conditions, the tax advantages it offers are significant. Investing time in implementing and managing QESOs is a worthwhile endeavor, enhancing employee compensation and driving growth.

Global Equity Made Safe

CONTACT US
BACK TO BLOG
Further reading

Product

How Stock Options Are Taxed in Canada: Frequently Asked Questions

In Canada, the benefit from exercising stock options is taxed as employment income at the marginal rate. Eligible employees may claim a 50% deduction if certain conditions are met.

Yarin Yom-Tov

Product Tax Manager

7
 min read
July 23, 2025

Product

What Is a CCPC? Tax Benefits & Equity Planning for Canadian Startups

Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation a legal classification that unlocks significant tax advantages. Employees in a CCPC can defer taxes on stock option gains until the shares are sold.

Yarin Yom-Tov

Product Tax Manager

7
 min read
July 14, 2025

United States

What is The Alternative Minimum Tax and Why You Should Care

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) may sound like a niche tax rule, but for companies offering stock-based compensation, particularly Incentive Stock Options (ISOs), it’s a critical consideration.

Yarin Yom-Tov

Product Tax Manager

10
 min read
June 10, 2025

Safeguard Your Equity Worldwide

Contact us