QIM Score: 90/100 — published under the house rule: no post goes live unscored. Routes: V2K Defense · Law Desk · Blue Data.

If you are trying to understand whether the courts can help, you deserve a clear-eyed map of what has actually been filed and how it has fared. This is that map — neutral, current, and complete. It covers the cases that have failed and the cases that have succeeded, so you can see the legal terrain as it really is. Some of it is discouraging; some of it is genuinely promising. Both are true, and you should know both.

Part One: The Cases That Have Failed

Lawsuits that allege, directly, that the government or its contractors targeted a person with directed-energy weapons or voice-to-skull technology have a consistent record in federal court: they are dismissed.

In the most prominent example, Targeted Justice, Inc. and a group of individual plaintiffs sued numerous federal agencies and officials, alleging they were surveilled and injured with directed-energy weapons and voice-to-skull technology. The district court dismissed the constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit dismissed part of the appeal, affirmed the rest, declined to issue an injunction, and found the claims unlikely to succeed on the merits. A petition was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 24-91). No relief was granted at any level.

It is not an isolated outcome. In Starrett v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (5th Cir. 2018), claims that the government conspired to subject the plaintiff to mind experiments, "Remote Neural Monitoring," and "Voice to Skull" harassment were likewise dismissed. Across these cases, the same obstacles recur: there is no identifiable, suable defendant tied to specific conduct; sovereign immunity bars most suits against federal agencies and officials; courts find no jurisdictional basis for the claims as written; and under the pleading standards set by Iqbal and Twombly, allegations unsupported by admissible, specific evidence are treated as conclusory and dismissed. This is the uphill battle, stated plainly: as currently pleaded, the direct directed-energy suit against the government does not survive.

Part Two: The Cases That Have Succeeded

A different and far more successful body of litigation runs in parallel — cases about location and data surveillance. These are winning, settling, and producing citable law.

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are facing a class action (reported at roughly $8 billion in exposure) alleging they sold customers' real-time location data — at times precise to the street corner — to aggregators who resold it to bounty hunters, marketers, and surveillance firms, without consent. Separately, the Federal Communications Commission fined those carriers nearly $200 million in 2024 for the same conduct; the Second Circuit upheld Verizon's $46.9 million portion in September 2025; and on June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC may impose such fines. The unlawfulness of selling location data without consent now has regulatory findings and Supreme Court backing behind it.

Data brokers have fared no better in court. In FTC v. Kochava, Inc. (D. Idaho, No. 2:22-cv-00377), a federal judge denied the broker's motion to dismiss in February 2025 — allowing the claim that selling precise geolocation data is an unfair practice to proceed — and the matter later settled with location-data safeguards. A related private class action, Murphy v. Kochava (No. 2:23-cv-00058), settled in November 2025 with injunctive relief while preserving the plaintiffs' monetary-damages claims. The Federal Trade Commission has also brought a series of actions against brokers including X-Mode/Outlogic, InMarket, Gravy Analytics/Venntel, and Mobilewalla, restricting the sale of sensitive location data.

Underpinning all of it is Carpenter v. United States (2018), in which the Supreme Court held that government access to a person's cell-site location data generally requires a warrant — establishing that your location is constitutionally protected information.

Why the Two Halves Diverge

The contrast is instructive. The successful cases share features the unsuccessful ones lack: an identifiable defendant a court can hold accountable (a named carrier or data broker); documentary evidence (data trails, contracts, regulatory findings); an established cause of action (consumer-privacy and unfair-practices law, constitutional location protection); and a clear path to court without a sovereign-immunity bar, because the defendants are private companies. The directed-energy suits, by contrast, typically name the government or unknown operators, rest on personal testimony rather than documentary proof, and run into immunity and jurisdiction walls before the merits are ever reached.

What This Means for Someone Navigating It

The honest summary is two-sided. If the goal is a direct lawsuit declaring that one was attacked by a directed-energy weapon, the existing record shows that path has not succeeded and faces steep, well-documented obstacles. If the concern can be connected to provable conduct — the non-consensual collection or sale of one's location, unauthorized access to one's devices, or a course of conduct by an identifiable person — then there is an active, developing body of law, with cases that are winning and settling, to work within. Understanding which category a situation falls into is the single most important step, and it is the kind of assessment an attorney can help make. The terrain is uneven, but it is not empty.

How Michael Benavides Legal Can Help

If you are trying to figure out which side of that line your situation sits on, that is exactly the assessment this office provides — honestly, and without either mockery or false promises. We map your facts to the levers that can actually move, connect provable conduct to the causes of action the courts are recognizing, and tell you plainly where a claim can go and where it cannot. Call or text 707-362-4166 for a free, confidential case analysis.

V2K Defense — Michael Benavides Legal | Michael Benavides, Esq., CA Bar No. 270714 | 428 J Street, Sacramento | call/text 707-362-4166 | attorneymichaelbenavides.com

Attorney advertising. General legal information, not legal or medical advice; no attorney-client relationship is created by reading this. The firm is not affiliated with any government agency. Cases described should be independently verified; outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction. References include Targeted Justice (No. 24-91); Starrett v. Lockheed Martin, 735 F. App'x 169 (5th Cir. 2018); FTC v. Kochava, No. 2:22-cv-00377 (D. Idaho); Murphy v. Kochava, No. 2:23-cv-00058 (D. Idaho); FCC enforcement (2024) and related appellate rulings, including the Second Circuit's September 2025 decision (Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, No. 24-1733) and the U.S. Supreme Court's June 4, 2026 ruling (FCC v. AT&T, No. 25-406); and Carpenter v. United States (2018). If you are in crisis or thinking about harming yourself, reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988) — reaching for support is strength, not surrender.