FirstAlerts

Datadog COO Adam Blitzer Sells Additional $2.94 Million in Company Stock

A new SEC filing shows Datadog's chief operating officer sold 13,812 shares, bringing his total sales to $2.94 million.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 5, 2026, 12:01 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 5, 2026, 12:06 a.m. ET
, of , sold 13,812 shares of common stock on September 2, 2026, according to a Form 4 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The shares were sold at $ each, for a total transaction value of $2,940,631. After the sale, Blitzer held 249,959 shares. The filing indicates the transaction was not made under a trading plan. This is the latest in a series of sales by Blitzer, whose total sales now amount to $2.94 million. The filing lists Blitzer's address as , NY. Datadog is headquartered in , NY.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 5, 2026, 12:01 a.m. ETFirst report

    Datadog COO Adam Blitzer Sells $2.94 Million in Company Stock

    Adam Blitzer, Chief Operating Officer of Datadog, Inc. (NASDAQ: DDOG), sold 13,812 shares of common stock on September 2, 2026, according to a Form 4 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The shares were sold at $212.9041 each, for a total transaction value of $2,940,631. After the sale, Blitzer held 249,959 shares. The filing lists Blitzer's address as New York, NY, and indicates the transaction was not made under a trading plan.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 15 Sept 2026, 04:06current

    First published.

  2. Version 15 Sept 2026, 04:01current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.