Space lawsuits fall into a small number of recurring categories: protests over government launch and satellite contracts, commercial disputes between operators and launch providers, employment and unpaid-contractor claims, environmental and regulatory enforcement, debris liability, spectrum fights, and the occasional oddity like a claim of ownership over an asteroid. Most resolve through settlement or narrow procedural rulings rather than sweeping precedent, and the international framework that governs damage from space objects has been formally invoked only once.
Contract Protests Over NASA and Defense Awards
The largest space-related lawsuits often start as bid protests. In April 2021, NASA awarded a $2.9 billion lunar lander contract to SpaceX under the Artemis program, and Blue Origin sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A federal judge rejected the challenge in November 2021, finding Blue Origin’s proposal was priced well above NASA’s available funding and did not comply with solicitation requirements. The court concluded Blue Origin lacked a “substantial chance of award” and that NASA’s evaluation was neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.1The New York Times. Blue Origin Loses NASA SpaceX Moon Contract Lawsuit2Court of Federal Claims. Blue Origin Federation v. United States, No. 21-1695C
A more recent protest played out differently. In August 2024, the Space Development Agency awarded roughly $424 million in satellite contracts to York Space Systems and Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems. Viasat protested in September 2024, alleging the SDA unfairly weighted bids and gave improper help to competitors. A government investigation during the proceedings reportedly uncovered problems serious enough to warrant canceling Tyvak’s contract and re-soliciting bids,3Defense Daily. SDA to Re-Bid Tyvak Contract for Gamma T2TL Satellites After Viasat Protest and it also reportedly examined whether the SDA director had improperly shared bidding information with Tyvak before the award.4Breaking Defense. Viasat Bid Protest at Heart of DoD Investigation of SDA Head Tournear By April 2025, Viasat and the government settled with an agreement to re-evaluate proposals and halt existing work on the contested contracts.5Law360. Viasat, Feds Settle Protest of $424M Satellite Contracts
Launch and Satellite Commercial Disputes
Below the contract-protest layer sits a steady stream of commercial fights, most of them routed to arbitration. British satellite operator Avanti Communications went to the American Arbitration Association in New York in January 2011 after SpaceX failed to complete Falcon 9 validation flights before Avanti’s Hylas-1 launch. Avanti had moved to an Arianespace Ariane 5 and wanted its deposit back. The tribunal awarded Avanti $7.56 million plus interest, the full refund SpaceX had refused to return.6SpaceNews. Avanti Wins Arbitration Award Against SpaceX7Satellite Today. Avanti Wins Arbitration Against SpaceX to Recoup Hylas-1 Launch Deposit
Geopolitics has produced its own disputes. In mid-2025, OneWeb initiated a UNCITRAL arbitration against Russia under the UK-Russia bilateral investment treaty after Roscosmos refused to launch 36 OneWeb satellites on a Soyuz rocket in March 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. OneWeb had already recorded a $229.2 million impairment tied to the lost satellites and the postponed launch.8Global Arbitration Review. Orbiting Human-Built Objects: Managing and Resolving Satellite Disputes
An ongoing constellation dispute has produced a rare in-orbit injunction. NorthStar Earth and Space paid over $14 million to Spire Global for a satellite constellation that NorthStar alleges was defective, with one satellite lost and three others failing to meet contractual service levels. When Spire moved to decommission the remaining satellites, NorthStar obtained an urgent injunction from the Ontario Superior Court in September 2024 ordering Spire to keep the satellites operational while the parties proceeded to ICC arbitration. The court applied a relaxed legal standard borrowed from international arbitration law rather than the traditional Canadian test for injunctions.9Space Intel Report. Ontario Court Orders Spire to Maintain Data Flow to Customer NorthStar10Arbitration Matters. Ontario Court Modifies Injunction Test in Context of International Arbitrations
A Consumer-Style Case: The Lunar Tourism Suit
Space tourism has already produced a breach-of-contract case. Austrian billionaire Harald McPike paid a $7 million deposit to Space Adventures in March 2013 toward a $150 million circumlunar Soyuz mission. McPike later alleged the company lacked a formal agreement with Roscosmos to actually conduct the flight. Space Adventures terminated the contract in March 2015 after McPike failed to make a second $8 million payment and kept the deposit.11SpaceNews. Space Adventures Reaches Settlement With Would-Be Lunar Tourist
McPike sued in May 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breach of contract, fraud, consumer fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment against Space Adventures, its parent Zero-Gravity Holdings, and two executives. In March 2019, Judge T.S. Ellis III denied cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling a jury should decide whether a breach of warranty occurred. The parties settled within two weeks on undisclosed terms, with both sides reportedly agreeing to pay their own legal costs. The case was dismissed on April 18, 2019.12CourtListener. McPike v. Zero-Gravity Holdings, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-0056213EWN. McPike’s $150 Million Planned Space Flight Ends in Court Settlement
Employment and Unpaid-Contractor Suits at SpaceX
SpaceX has drawn litigation from its own workforce and from the vendors that build its facilities. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees circulated an open letter criticizing company leadership. SpaceX fired several of them, citing policy violations, and the terminated workers filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board in late 2022. The NLRB Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint in January 2024. SpaceX responded the next day with a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. The Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX’s interlocutory appeal in March 2025, and the underlying NLRB case (19-CA-309274) has since been closed following a joint motion to dismiss without prejudice in December 2025 and a Supreme Court denial of certiorari in April 2026.14Justia. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, No. 24-4031515NLRB. Case 19-CA-309274 – Space Exploration Technologies
Contractors have taken a different route. As of 2024, more than 70 mechanic’s liens totaling millions of dollars had been filed against SpaceX by over a dozen contractors for unpaid construction bills at its Starship facilities near Brownsville. Amounts range from tens of thousands of dollars in scaffolding rentals to nearly $2 million sought by San Antonio’s Alpha Building Corp. for home-building and launch-site work. Some liens have settled, others have gone to arbitration, and some remain unresolved.16CNBC. Musk’s SpaceX Is Quick to Build in Texas, Slow to Pay Its Bills17Houston Chronicle. SpaceX Contractor Payment Disputes in South Texas
Boeing v. Virgin Galactic
In March 2024, Boeing and its Aurora Flight Sciences subsidiary sued Virgin Galactic in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging Virgin owed $26.4 million in unpaid invoices and had misappropriated trade secrets. The dispute arose from a development contract for two new “mothership” aircraft meant to replace Virgin Galactic’s VMS Eve. Work ended in May 2023, and Boeing alleged that Virgin refused to pay for completed work and declined to destroy proprietary technical data, including modeling equations and composite material test results.18SpaceNews. Boeing Sues Virgin Galactic Over Mothership Project Virgin Galactic called the lawsuit “wrong on the facts and the law.” By November 2024, Boeing agreed to end the litigation.19Law360. Boeing Agrees to End Virgin Galactic Secrets, Contract Fight
Environmental and Regulatory Enforcement
Starship at Boca Chica
In May 2023, the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas sued the FAA in Washington, D.C., arguing the agency’s environmental assessment of SpaceX’s Starship operations was inadequate. The plaintiffs pointed to the first Starship launch in April 2023, which caused a four-acre grassfire and scattered debris, and alleged the FAA had failed to properly study impacts on endangered species near the Boca Chica Wildlife Refuge.20The Guardian. Musk SpaceX Texas Wildlife Lawsuit21Texas Tribune. Federal Judge Dismisses Environmental Lawsuit Over SpaceX Boca Chica22Climate Case Chart. Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Aviation Administration
The Swarm Technologies Fine
Direct enforcement actions are rarer. In December 2018, the FCC fined Swarm Technologies $900,000 for launching four “SpaceBEE” nano-satellites without authorization. The FCC had denied Swarm’s application in December 2017 because the satellites were too small to be reliably tracked in orbit. The company launched them on an Indian rocket in January 2018 anyway and then conducted unauthorized communication tests. A consent decree committed Swarm to a five-year compliance plan requiring pre-launch reports to the FCC for all future missions.23FCC. FCC Reaches $900,000 Settlement for Unauthorized Satellite Launch24GeekWire. FCC Levies $900,000 Fine on Swarm Technologies for Unauthorized Satellite Launch
xAI and SpaceX in Mississippi
In 2026, two suits targeted Elon Musk’s xAI and SpaceX over a Southaven, Mississippi data center powered by gas turbines. In April 2026, the NAACP sued xAI and its subsidiary MZX Tech in the Northern District of Mississippi, alleging Clean Air Act violations tied to 27 unpermitted methane gas turbines with the potential to emit over 1,700 tons of nitrogen oxides annually, sited half a mile from homes and a mile from an elementary school.25Earthjustice. xAI Illegal Gas Power Plant Data Center Colossus26The Hill. SpaceX xAI Data Center Noise Southaven Lawsuit27Journal Record. xAI, SpaceX Sued Over Mississippi Data Center Noise Nuisance Both cases remain active.
Debris Damage and the Cosmos 954 Precedent
Space debris liability rests primarily on the 1972 Liability Convention, which holds “launching states” absolutely liable for damage their space objects cause on Earth’s surface. The framework has been formally invoked successfully only once, after the Soviet nuclear-powered satellite Cosmos 954 scattered radioactive debris across northern Canada in January 1978. Canada ran a large cleanup and filed a formal claim; the two countries settled in 1981, with the USSR paying Canada 3 million Canadian dollars, a fraction of the roughly 14 million dollars Canada spent on the cleanup.28Stanford Law School. Who Takes Out the Trash in Space29Taylor Wessing. From Orbit to Courtroom
More recent incidents have run through domestic tort systems instead. In March 2024, a piece of metal from a battery pallet jettisoned from the International Space Station punched through the roof of the Otero family’s home in Naples, Florida. NASA confirmed the debris came from the ISS. The family filed a tort claim seeking over $80,000 for property damage, business interruption, and emotional distress. As of mid-2024, NASA was reviewing the claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which gives the agency six months to respond.30Ars Technica. Family Whose Roof Was Damaged by Space Debris Files Claims Against NASA31Insurance Journal. Space Debris Hits Florida Home, Family Files NASA Claim Additional debris incidents in Saskatchewan, Kenya, and Poland in 2024 and 2025 have further exposed gaps in an international regime designed for a handful of government-run space programs.29Taylor Wessing. From Orbit to Courtroom
Spectrum Fights
Radio spectrum and orbital slots have become a growing arena. Ligado Networks and Viasat (which acquired Inmarsat) have been locked in a long-running dispute over L-band spectrum. In June 2025, the two companies reached a binding term sheet under which Viasat expected to receive $568 million in payments through 2026 in exchange for dropping its opposition to Ligado’s bankruptcy restructuring. The deal has already frayed. In February 2026, Inmarsat filed an FCC petition challenging an AST SpaceMobile and Ligado application, which Ligado argued breached the support agreement. A bankruptcy judge in Delaware allowed Ligado to pause a $100 million payment to Inmarsat while holding the money in escrow.32Viasat. Viasat Announces Comprehensive Agreement With Ligado Networks33Broadband Breakfast. Ligado Can Pause $100 Million Payment to Inmarsat, Judge Rules
Separately, SpaceX and Amazon’s Project Kuiper have traded accusations at the FCC and the International Telecommunication Union, with Kuiper alleging that SpaceX is “warehousing” spectrum by filing complex network registrations that lock out competitors. SpaceX has petitioned the FCC to relax power flux-density limits for its Gen2 Starlink constellation, a request opposed by legacy operators like Viasat who say it could cause harmful interference. In January 2026, the FCC authorized a second tranche of 7,500 Gen2 satellites, bringing SpaceX’s authorized constellation to 15,000, while deferring action on some of the more contentious spectrum requests.34FCC. SpaceX Gen2 Modification Authorization and Order, DA 26-36
Data Breach at Maxar
Space companies also face the same corporate exposure any large employer does. In October 2024, Maxar Space LLC suffered a cyberattack in which an unauthorized user, traced to an IP address in Hong Kong, accessed employee data for about a week before detection. The breach exposed names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, gender, and employment information of approximately 2,600 current and former employees.35National CIO Review. Employee Data Breach at Maxar: Implications for National Security
A class action, In Re: Maxar Data Security Litigation (Case No. 24CV452108), was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. The proposed settlement, preliminarily approved in March 2026, provides class members up to $3,500 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses, up to $80 for lost time without proof required, and three years of credit monitoring. California residents may receive an additional $100 statutory payment, subject to a $15,000 aggregate cap. The claim deadline is July 16, 2026, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2026.36ClassAction.org. Maxar Space Settlement Wraps Up Class Action Over Data Breach37MaxarSettlement.com. In Re: Maxar Data Security Litigation Settlement
Where Courts Have Drawn the Line: Property Claims in Space
The outer edge of this body of case law is Nemitz v. NASA from 2004. Gregory Nemitz claimed ownership of asteroid 433 Eros and billed NASA $20, calculated at 20 cents per year for a hundred years, as “rent” for landing its NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft there. A federal court dismissed the claim, ruling Nemitz had not established any legally enforceable property interest in the asteroid. International treaties generally prohibit national appropriation of celestial bodies, and no legal framework currently supports private property claims in space.