Talk:ZoomInfo

2nd deletion proposal

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on how to use WP, it can be a bit overwhelming for a beginner.

Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history.
Search results for ZoomInfo https://www.google.com/search?q=zoominfo:
- The business website
- Wikipedia article
- Misc business related entries (review sites, glassdoor, etc)
- PR spam that made it into news

Company does not seem to have done anything of note to warrant listing.

I discovered the company because they seem to have become adept at google spamming, which im guessing is the same as most of their visitors.

Contested deletion

A7? --Ottawahitech (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

While this page has been contested for deletion (which I would have voted to delete it on its time) I now agree to keep it running but telling users all the good and bad documented issue regarding it, ant copyright infringement practices should be and are worth keep them on record, also to update and keep record of the known Crawler agents which they use (and add more when they appear) As Neutral as possible and truthfully so the page reflects the company behavior good or bad. Otherwise its only pure marketing behavior which Wikipedia its not for, if so then i would then recomend its deletion again. Gabriel Vergara 2016 gv_sec_trans 14:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am really happy this page exists. ZoomInfo has the # 1 market share in lead databases. I am very appreciative that this page exists. I am in sales, and I have no connection to ZoomInfo. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Competition

I think RocketReach is a much bigger competitor for ZoomInfo than any of the competitors currently listed. I would suggest adding RocketReach. Also, I do not think LinkedIn is truly a competitor. The goals of the two products are significantly different. But I am OK with leaving LinkedIn as a tangential competitor. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Spam blacklisting

I cannot find a source with which to WP:VERIFY the following, added in this dif, so am pasting it here for now.

Due to its model, the service has been widely blacklisted by many hosting service providers and spam trackers, such as Spamhaus.

This cannot go into the article until it is reliably sourced. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I will try to pull the blacklist Record ID from the SBL, if there is not on this week list they probably asked de-listing it, SBL last week had it and it comes and goes. and in many lists its listed as badbot NextGenSearchBot the Zoominfo bot agent as well as many common hosting black lists include it https://www.ultrawebhosting.com/downloads/badbotblocker.txt

Project honeypot have it on its list as well due agressive scrapping http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_207.106.190.66

Again me and my signature issue:D goodnight im going to sleep thnx Gabriel.Vergara (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, this is why it was important to you to reference their bot, NextGenSearchBot, in the article. That bot does appear in the Ultrawebhosting list and I see that in honeypot they note is assigned to NextGenSearchBot; but they also say there that nothing bad came of the visit. What would be the most helpful here would be a secondary source that talks about this - an article in a search engine trade rag or the like.... Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Platform section

In my view this is not encyclopedic content, especially as it is sourced only to company's website. Moving here for now, for discussion. I made the section header bold instead of keeping it as a section, to keep this in one Talk page section. There was a reference just floating - I anchored it to a placeholder {floaty citation) text.

Platform

(floaty citation)

Feature	Functionality
Search	Search is a prospecting search engine that allows users to target prospects on the individual level.
Build	Similar to Search, Build allows users to prospect for new leads, but at a much higher volume. Usually used to create lists for email marketing campaigns.
Insights	Insights is an analysis tool, where users can analyze either their entire database or a single contact list. Insights shows trends in firmographic and demographic information.
Enhance	With Enhance, users can upload either their entire database or individual contact lists to update incorrect information, or append missing information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, titles, etc.
FormComplete	FormComplete is a tool that allows businesses to display shorter forms on their websites, while ZoomInfo provides additional firmographic, demographic and contact information.
Community Edition	Community Edition gives users free access to the entire ZoomInfo database of business contacts. In exchange this access, users have to submit their own business contacts via an Outlook or Google Apps plugin.
Data Integrations	Data Integrations allows users to import Salesforce.com data directly into ZoomInfo without having to manually import files.
Salesforce.com Plugin	Customers may add the ZoomInfo tab to their Salesforce.com environment, enabling them to access ZoomInfo's prospecting tools to build a new list of leads or accounts. The Salesforce.com plugin also allows users to de-dupe against records already exisitng in Salesforce, as well as suggesting missing data.
ReachOut	Launched in 2016, ReachOut is a Google Chrome extension that allows users to access contact information by navigating to their target's LinkedIn profile and clicking on the ReachOut icon in their browser.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removing the content. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single component of a software service, and I think integrating a little bit of this information (if even that) with another section would be adequate. Appable (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards

Moving this here from the article. Most of these are sourced to press releases - we need independent sourcing to show it is noteworthy and assign appropriate weight.

Awards

Year	Honoree	Awarding Organization	Award
2015	ZoomInfo	Red Herring (magazine)	Top 100 Global
2015	ZoomInfo	Inc. 5000	Fastest-growing Private Companies
2015	ZoomInfo	Business Marketing Association	BMA B2 Award for Best Sales Enablement Tools
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Demand Generation Program of the Year - Silver Winner
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Inbound Marketing Program of the Year - Silver Winner
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Best Use of Technology in Sales - Silver Winner

Note - there was a longer version earlier that was trimmed by Appable in this dif to reach the list above. Maybe that is good enough? Full list is below.

Awards (older, longer version)

Year	Honoree	Awarding Organization	Award
2015	ZoomInfo	Red Herring (magazine)	Top 100 Global
2015	ZoomInfo	Red Herring	Top 100 North America
2015	ZoomInfo	Inc. 5000	Fastest-growing Private Companies
2015	ZoomInfo	Business Marketing Association	BMA B2 Award for Best Sales Enablement Tools
2015	Anna Fisher, Director of Marketing	Sales Lead Management Association	20 Women to Watch in Sales Lead Management
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Demand Generation Program of the Year - Silver Winner
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Inbound Marketing Program of the Year - Silver Winner
2015	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Best Use of Technology in Sales - Silver Winner
2015	Ned Leutz, Director of New Business Sales	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Sales Manager of the Year - Gold Winner
2015	Hank Lander, Senior Product Manager	Networks Prodcuts Guide - IT World Awards	Product Developer of the Year - Gold Winner
2015	Hila Nir, VP of Marketing & the ZoomInfo Marketing Team	Networks Prodcuts Guide - IT World Awards	Marketing Team of the Year
2014	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Sales Department of the Year- Computer Software- Bronze Winner
2014	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Sales Growth Achievement of the Year - Silver Winner
2014	ZoomInfo	Stevie Awards for Sales & Customer Service	Demand Generation Program of the Year - Bronze Winner
2014	Hila Nir, VP of Marketing	Sales Lead Management Association	20 Women to Watch in Sales Lead Management
2013	Yonatan Stern, CEO, Founder and Chief Scientist	BtoB Magazine	Who's Who in B-to-B

References

- Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 28 August 2020

I am proposing this edit on behalf of ZoomInfo. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I am submitting this edit request to propose edits that would correct out-of-date information and add further information about the company. I’ve provided an overview of proposed edits below. Thanks for your time and consideration.

ZoomInfo used to be called DiscoverOrg until 2019 when it rebranded. The founders of this company are Henry Schuck and Kirk Brown. Please remove Yonatan Stern, as he was the founder of the original Zoom Information, that was purchased by DiscoverOrg in 2019.

While Zoom Information (also known as Zoominfo) was founded in 2000, the current ZoomInfo (which used to be called DiscoverOrg) was founded in 2007. Can someone please change the founded year in the info box to 2007 to reflect the correct dates for the company that the article is about?

Thanks

Tehila.stern (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the Services & Solutions section

I am proposing this edit on behalf of ZoomInfo. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines.

I would like to recommend updates to the services and solutions section. The current version lacks information about the product and business model of the business. In general I would recommend an update to this section, but my own proposed update would include: "ZoomInfo bases its pricing on credit usage, number of licenses and functionality. Cost per credit and cost per license can vary depending on usage. The information ZoomInfo provides is also based on customer needs, with credit costs based on the depth of information needed by a customer. All customers can access traditional demographic and firmographic details. Advanced credits are needed to view intelligence categories like technographics and department budgets. Add-on solutions to the ZoomInfo platform can also impact pricing."

CITATION: https://www.martechcube.com/martech-interview-vp-product-marketing-zoominfo-peggysue-werthessen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehila.stern (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not for advertising products; the proposed change seems to be clear advertising, for example referring to customers and the cost of the products. Furthermore, the provided reference is to an interview with a marketer for the company, rather than a neutral independent source. Spencer^T•C 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Just been "notified" by Zoominfo

I came here because I just received mail from this company, with subject "Notice of personal information processing". I think they violate the EU GDPR on a grand scale. Basically they are saying "We collect the following types of Personal Information about you:

Name
Profile picture associated with your professional 
Telephone number (general or direct business numbers, faxes, and/or mobile numbers)
Email address, including business and/or other email addresses (including “freemails” such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.)
Job title and department
Office address
Company name
Work history
Education history
Professional affiliations
Links to social media profiles
Links to articles by, about, or quoting you (“web references”)
Inferences drawn from personal data in these categories

A scary amount of information.

The mail continues to explain in some detail what they want to do with the info (basically to provide it to their clients, including to sell it). They do provide a link to opt-out, but GDPR requires opt-in.

The mail states that "ZoomInfo is a registered data broker" in some US states.

The lead should explain at elementary school level what this company is getting their money for. Currently, it reads "is a software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals." This obscures more than it explains.

As a start, I added this to the lead: Zoominfo is a commercial search-engine, specialized in contact and business information. From internet and other sources, the company collects contact and other information about individuals, companies and other business entities, such as departments. They maintain profiles for the subjects and make these available to their clients, as a service and for a fee.

Now if only some reliable secondary source had written this. 77.180.180.175 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I too came here, as today I received an e-mail from this company in clear violation of the GDPR. I never heard about ZoomInfo prior to their spam-mail and sure never allowed them to process data about me. I am a EU-citizen. In the e-mail they state that "ZoomInfo may transfer Personal Information internationally" (which is not allowed under the GDPR), and "ZoomInfo gathers Personal Information from several sources" (under the GDPR this also is not allowed: you have to get explicit, informed consent from each single individual in advance - no OptOut!). And then they write "ZoomInfo is ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, and we are located at 805 Broadway St, Suite 900, Vancouver, WA 98660" (so they are not located in the EU and thus not allowed to treat data from EU-citizens a priori). Sajoch (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Listen up please everybody. First up, I do sympathise with the frustration on show here. The trouble is that there isn't really anything that Wikipedia can do about it. This is an encyclopaedia and this page is not a general forum for airing grievances with Zoominfo. That said, the article could do with some coverage of criticism of the company but only if it is derived from reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner. If anybody has any suggestions for sources we can use then please feel free to suggest them but only if they meet the criteria in WP:RS. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 29 April 2024

• What I think should be changed: I am a paid editor and acknowledge the COI guidelines.

Remove the following passage from the Controversies section:

Multiple organizations have issued warnings to their employees, customers, students, and other related parties regarding emails from ZoomInfo, zoominformation.com, and m.zoominfo-privacy.com.[16][4][17][18] The emails, while not technically claiming to be related to the popular videoconference software Zoom,[16][17] are vague enough that many unassuming email recipients may confuse the two;[16][19] there is speculation that the vague resemblance is intentional,[17] with ZoomInfo hoping to trick the recipients into clicking on the email's links,[17][20][21] thereby providing ZoomInfo with the personal information of both recipient and all those who email to or are emailed by the recipient[22][23] which ZoomInfo can then sell.[17] Zoom has felt the need to issue clarifying statements on the issue, too.[19] While technically not illegal, this approach has been called "voluntary malware"[24] and been noted as "morally questionable" as a legal borderline version of phishing[21][20] – hence the warnings published by many organizations to their employees and customers.[21][20]

• Why it should be changed: Baseless speculation from anonymous Reddit users does not constitute well-researched content and has no business being on Wikipedia. As a previous Talker stated: "This is an encyclopaedia and this page is not a general forum for airing grievances with Zoominfo." These criticisms are uninformed, inaccurate, derived from unreliable sources and not presented in a neutral manner, all of which goes against Wikipedia guidelines.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Rob.morse.zoominfo (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Not done: While I do think that the section needs to be re-written with sources that aren't self-published, the sources that you provided are not reliable. One is to a forum post and the other is to, what it looks like, an AI written article. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We welcome a rewrite using authentic, news-based sources, rather than those sourced from comment sections.

AIThority is actually a media outlet covering the AI space: "AiThority.com covers AI technology news, editorial insights and digital marketing trends from around the globe. Updates on modern marketing tech adoption, AI interviews, tech articles and events." https://aithority.com/

Additionally, ZoomInfo is an A+ Accredited Business on Better Business Bureau: https://www.bbb.org/us/wa/vancouver/profile/digital-marketing/zoominfo-1296-22673812

@Cowboygilbert Rob.morse.zoominfo (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing the "controversies" section

I've nuked the controversial section which (to my chagrin) appears to make me the agent of a shifty sales company doing shifty things to cover up their dubious business practices.

however...

Shifty sales company, for all their shiftiness, has seemingly done a good job of crisis management and no reputable media firms have reported on their shiftiness. This means that it's not appropriate to disparage them in this article, because to do so is WP:OR. I am very much open to reinstating an verifiable version if appropriate sources can be found. BrigadierG (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians: no euphemisms!

I know it's easy to follow a company's description of itself in its own IPO filings (and its surrounding media attention / hype), but WP:CENSOR require us to write in plainly descriptive languages. The subject is not in the industry of "software as a service" (not even an actual industry: What software? does Steam count too? Apple for their OS? Cloud gaming? Adobe?), it's a data broker, plain and simple.

I've rewritten the article entirely with (maybe brutally honest) plain language. The company's receiving quite some media attention recently to warrant its page a stay in Wikipedia, just not for the reason they hoped for. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Do not remove everything that's negative about the company

e.g., the "data broker" in infobox - you can't just say that it is not one. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that WP:NCORP places a stricter restriction on references for corporations in that sources are required to be in-depth. Merely listing news reports of business dealings and technical financial statistics might be in-depth, but it might not be the sole concern of our readers. It is likely that an article about a company with many news records yet little discussion of what it is actually doing is not encyclopedic nor informative. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi IrisChronomia. Through your last two revert to the article, your comments have demonstrated the politeness you show toward other editors. I will refrain from reproaching you in any way, since before editing I consulted some of Wikipedia policies (which, it seems, someone else did not do).

I would like to mention that the edits you made to article were partially reverted . Removing the External Links section and the list of categories appears more like a disruptive change .

The information you are repeatedly trying to add to the article was removed in the past (see – None of these are good sources - WP:SPS. Wikipedia isn't a battleground to WP:RGW and punish companies for practices which may or may not be ethically dubious. In the meantime, let's not load up on WP:OR and WP:UNDUE), and I fully agree with that decision because it lacks WP:OR (see also ).

For my part, I have expanded the article with important information in the History, Acquisitions, and other sections that are also typically found in similar companies. Thanks! Jehandy (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You're this good at Wikipedia policies?

Yes, I get it that you're hinting at me not consulting any policies, being uncivil, and being disruptive.

Would you like to explain to me, why did you think that removing the data broker from infobox industry was a good idea? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you like internal links, your additions were blatant WP:PUFFERY and decidedly not WP:NPOV. They read like they came straight off the company's website. You have been (correctly, IMHO) reverted twice, and continuing like this would likely be deemed an WP:EDITWAR.

@IrisChronomia it looks like they were pushing to recategorize it as IT. Seems pretty cut and dry to me considering they're literally registered as brokers, but it's in the body anyway and infoboxes have a tendency to get bulky so it might be easier to just let that part go. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. It helps. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@IrisChronomia I'm here to support as well, and I'm very curious what exactly motivated Jehandy's recent flurry of edits to whitewash this company page, and removal of a UPE maintenance tag on another page without seeming to meaningfully address the tag (or respond to the open talk page conversation about said tag).

Jehandy, do you have any conflicts of interest with the topics you've been editing? I see from your user page that you are an experience contributor to the French Wikipedia; while that's awesome, it's my understanding that en.wiki has much more stringent controls and requirements around paid editing, so while we're all aggressively quoting the policies and guidelines at others (hashtag, IrisChronomia did nothing wrong, lol), I'd encourage you to thoroughly review the documentation on what constitutes a conflict of interest on this wiki.

The community here in general (including me!) is not happy about undisclosed paid editing (which is not limited to "someone paid me to make this exact edit," but includes marketing roles and jobs which indirectly incentivize such "whitewash" editing). Best wishes finding the best ways you can contribute, which hopefully don't involve a continuation of the patterns I've just described which are blatant in your recent edits!

(Note: immediately edited this after submitting, as I was incorrect about the second company page- a thorough criticism section was included and cited there, albeit to sources I can't check due to language. en.wiki is full of new users trying to promote or whitewash companies, but it seems I was mistaken in the case of the Flying Whale page. The attempted edits to this page were still inappropriate imo)Sophiatries (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC) edited Sophiatries (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have restored the article to a balanced version with verified information cited from notable media sources. Any further discussions about other articles, please address them in their respective places, as it is difficult for me to respond here.

I would like to mention that I have no COI and that I edit articles in good faith. I will leave it to any administrator to review both versions and determine which one is correct. Jehandy (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not up to administrators to deal with content disputes. That's what consensus is for. If you can't engage in discussion to explain your reasoning you have no business editing Wikipedia, because Communication is required. Please stop making changes to the article until agreement is reached. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jehandy, are you using a translator to communicate? Your responses are incredibly generic and do not seem to address the majority of the issues people are raising with you, which is very common in AI/chatbot-generated responses.

Please note that using such generative tools in Talk Page discussions on en.wiki is frowned upon- we would all rather hear from you directly, no matter how "polished" your English usage is. I'm a native speaker, but on talk pages I write informally (some would say rambling-ly, lol) myself, because it's ideal for us to all converse as our real selves and find a great consensus together.

Thank you for answering the COI question, no offense was meant, it's simply a red flag when someone is putting apparent work into "protecting" the reputation of a company or living individual on the encyclopedia, as most of the time that is only done by those who have a particular stake in the matter. I know all the versions of Wikipedia work differently, and I'm still learning en.wiki policies despite reading the documentation for more than a year straight now, so as long as we all collaborate in good faith there's always more to uncover!

As noted below, please do not revert to your preferred changes again without reaching consensus here: another important norm in this community. Thanks! Sophiatries (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You're reverting against the implicit consensus. And if you revert again, it would be explicitly against the consensus. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 00:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Merged 6 edit requests from temporary account

Merger note: moved them into a single heading for easier navigation.海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 20:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account, please reply to your own thread in the future instead of starting multiple different topics, for viewing purposes. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 21:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect citation 1

Citation 25 incorrectly cites a securities lawsuit to support a claim that ZoomInfo is subject to lawsuits for illegally collecting and selling personal data without consent. This citation is wrong and does not support the assertion made on the page. ~2026-39468-90 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Citation is indeed inappropriate (being a law firm's advertisement, essentially), and mostly there to serve as a refbombing; it is previously added to there by me back when I have some heavy bias against the subject of the article, and it is inappropriate. Removed. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 20:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation 2

Citation 7 incorrectly cites a website that simply identifies ZoomInfo is different than Zoom Video. The cited website does not support the claim that ZoomInfo is the subject of numerous complaints and lawsuits. ~2026-42184-55 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it did at some point in the past but it is no help now. The other source is sufficient anyway so I'll just remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation 3

Citation 6 incorrectly cites a website that simply identifies ZoomInfo is different than Zoom Video. The cited website does not support the claim that ZoomInfo is the subject of numerous complaints and lawsuits. The only reference to complaints about ZoomInfo on the cited website refers to a negative BBB rating (which is factually inaccurate - if you click the BBB link on the website you will see that ZoomInfo has an “A+” rating on BBB). It is my recommendation and request that the sentence associated with this citation also be removed because lawsuits are already addressed in the “Lawsuits” section of this page. ~2026-42184-55 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks for spotting the issue. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation - Removal Request

Based on the comment above, citation 6 should be removed. To that end, the sentence allegedly supported by the incorrect citation should also be removed. ~2026-42184-55 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Revision Request - Neutral Point of View

The first sentence under the “Lawsuits” section is misleading and does not present a neutral point of view by the editor because it presents the allegations of the lawsuits as a matter of fact and not the subject of an open dispute.

The sentence should read as follows:

”ZoomInfo is subject to a lawsuit alleging that its advertising practices violate certain state-level right of publicity laws. ZoomInfo is also subject to a securities lawsuit alleging that it misled investors and artificially inflated its stock price.” ~2026-42184-55 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Redundancy - Removal Request

The final sentence under the “History” section is duplicative of the information in the “Lawsuits” section. The following sentence should be removed because it violates the Wikipedia standards of avoiding redundancy (confirmed via the Wikipedia Redundancy Template) and violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Layout (specifically, broad overviews go in the History section while specific topics, like litigation, belong solely under the dedicated subheadings):

”The company was accused of investors fraud in a 2024 lawsuit, and breach of fiduciary duties to its shareholders in 2026.” ~2026-42184-55 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)