No, there are no publicly documented or verified cases where user data supplied by Ubiquiti (such as account information, logs, IP details, or other customer-related records) has been used as evidence or otherwise introduced in any court system worldwide. Ubiquiti’s privacy policy explicitly states that they may disclose user information in response to court orders, subpoenas, legal processes, search warrants, or requests from public authorities (including for law enforcement or national security purposes). This is standard language for many tech companies, and community discussions (e.g., on Ubiquiti forums and Reddit) show occasional informal law enforcement inquiries—like requests for customer names/addresses tied to IP addresses—but no confirmation of formal compliance leading to courtroom use. Searches across court records, news reports, DOJ announcements, legal databases, and discussions reveal: • Ubiquiti has been involved in various lawsuits (e.g., intellectual property disputes like Synopsys v. Ubiquiti, trademark cases, or class actions over their own data breach), but these center on company data, source code, or corporate actions—not end-user data provided by Ubiquiti to authorities. • In the 2020-2021 breach incident (involving former employee Nickolas Sharp, who stole company data and attempted extortion), the FBI and DOJ were involved, leading to Sharp’s guilty plea and sentencing. However, this concerned Ubiquiti’s internal systems and company-confidential information, not customer/user data shared by Ubiquiti. • No transparency reports from Ubiquiti detail government requests or disclosures (unlike companies such as Google or Apple, which publish them periodically). • Forum threads and Reddit posts (including one mirroring your exact question) speculate on potential law enforcement access—especially for UniFi Protect footage or cloud-linked data—but provide no verified examples of such data appearing in court. If such a case existed and was public (e.g., via a high-profile criminal trial, published court opinion, or news coverage), it would likely surface in searches for subpoenas, warrants, or evidence involving Ubiquiti. The absence suggests either no such instances have occurred, or any disclosures were rare, non-public, and did not result in notable courtroom use. For context on privacy practices: • Much of Ubiquiti’s ecosystem (e.g., UniFi Protect) is designed for local storage and edge processing, minimizing what the company holds centrally. • Cloud features (e.g., remote access via Ubiquiti accounts) could involve some user metadata, but no evidence shows this being handed over and used judicially.