{"ok":true,"source":"tensorfeed.ai","disclaimer":"Editorial summary based on public court filings and news coverage. Not legal advice. Verify against cited sources before acting.","lastUpdated":"2026-09-14","count":51,"lawsuits":[{"id":"nyt-v-openai","name":"The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. & OpenAI","plaintiff":"The New York Times Company","defendants":["Microsoft Corporation","OpenAI, Inc.","OpenAI LP","OpenAI GP"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:23-cv-11195 (part of MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2023-12-27","status":"active","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation","unfair-competition"],"summary":"NYT alleges OpenAI and Microsoft trained GPT-class models on millions of NYT articles without license and that ChatGPT outputs reproduce articles verbatim. Since April 2025 it has been coordinated in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation) before Judge Sidney Stein; an April 4, 2025 opinion dismissed some DMCA claims while the core copyright claims proceeded, and in January 2026 Judge Stein affirmed orders requiring OpenAI to produce a 20 million ChatGPT log sample. The Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft cross-moved for summary judgment on September 4, 2026, days after the U.S. Justice Department filed a statement of interest arguing that training on copyrighted works can qualify as fair use.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/the-new-york-times-company-v-microsoft-corporation/","https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf","https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf","https://www.axios.com/2026/09/08/nyt-openai-microsoft-copyright-lawsuit"]},{"id":"daily-news-v-openai","name":"Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corp. & OpenAI","plaintiff":"Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post, Orlando Sentinel, Sun Sentinel, San Jose Mercury News, Orange County Register, St. Paul Pioneer Press (eight Alden Global Capital papers)","defendants":["Microsoft Corporation","OpenAI, Inc.","OpenAI subsidiaries"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-03285 (part of MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2024-04-30","status":"consolidated","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"Eight Alden-owned newspapers allege the same training-data and output copying as the NYT case and are coordinated with it in MDL No. 3143. The April 4, 2025 opinion let DMCA 1202(b)(1) claims against OpenAI and trademark dilution claims proceed while dismissing the DMCA claims against Microsoft and the misappropriation claims. The papers joined the Times in a July 2026 motion for evidentiary sanctions over ChatGPT log discovery and moved for summary judgment on September 4, 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68484432/daily-news-lp-v-microsoft-corporation/","https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf","https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/09/new-york-times-says-openai-hid-evidence-in-chatgpt-copyright-trial/"]},{"id":"cir-v-openai","name":"Center for Investigative Reporting v. OpenAI & Microsoft","plaintiff":"Center for Investigative Reporting (Mother Jones, Reveal)","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc.","Microsoft Corporation"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-04872 (part of MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2024-06-27","status":"active","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"Investigative-journalism nonprofit alleges OpenAI scraped CIR's reporting from Mother Jones and Reveal for training, and that ChatGPT regurgitates articles without attribution. Transferred into MDL No. 3143 in April 2025; the April 4, 2025 opinion dismissed the misappropriation and abridgment claims with prejudice but let the DMCA 1202(b)(1) claim against OpenAI proceed. CIR was among the news plaintiffs that moved for summary judgment on September 4, 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68892274/the-center-for-investigative-reporting-inc-v-openai-inc/","https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf"]},{"id":"raw-story-v-openai","name":"Raw Story Media v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"Raw Story Media; AlterNet Media","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-01514 (2d Cir. No. 25-1756)","filed":"2024-02-28","status":"dismissed","stage":"appeal","claims":["dmca-violation"],"summary":"DMCA-only theory (CMI removal) without a copyright claim. Judge McMahon dismissed for lack of standing in November 2024 and denied leave to amend on April 3, 2025; Judge Stein, as MDL judge, denied reconsideration on June 18, 2025. The Second Circuit heard the plaintiffs' appeal on March 18, 2026 and had not ruled as of September 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68290709/raw-story-media-inc-v-openai-inc/","https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv01514/616533/178/","https://courthousenews.com/digital-news-outlets-urge-second-circuit-to-revive-chatgpt-copyright-claims/"]},{"id":"ziff-davis-v-openai","name":"Ziff Davis v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"Ziff Davis, Inc. and affiliated publishers","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (transferred from D. Del.)","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-04315 (part of MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2025-04-24","status":"active","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"The digital publisher alleges OpenAI copied content from its sites for training and outputs. Filed in Delaware and transferred into MDL No. 3143; a December 15, 2025 opinion dismissed some claims, including a DMCA anti-circumvention claim based on robots.txt, while other claims proceeded. Ziff Davis moved for summary judgment with the other news plaintiffs on September 4, 2026.","sources":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04315/643043/300/","https://www.axios.com/2026/09/08/nyt-openai-microsoft-copyright-lawsuit"]},{"id":"richner-v-openai","name":"Richner Communications, Inc. et al. v. Microsoft & OpenAI","plaintiff":"Richner Communications, Inc. and other local newspaper publishers","defendants":["Microsoft Corporation","OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-05320","filed":"2026-06-24","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"A group of local newspaper publishers representing hundreds of outlets alleges OpenAI and Microsoft copied their articles for training and removed copyright management information. Marked related to MDL No. 3143, where it was stayed by stipulation in July 2026 pending the MDL summary judgment rulings.","sources":["https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Richner-publishers-openAI-complaint.pdf","https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2026/jun/25/arkansas-democrat-gazette-wehco-join-lawsuit/"]},{"id":"seattle-times-newsday-v-openai","name":"The Seattle Times Co. & Newsday LLC v. OpenAI & Microsoft","plaintiff":"The Seattle Times Company; Newsday LLC","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities","Microsoft Corporation"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-07644","filed":"2026-09-04","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"Two regional newspapers allege OpenAI and Microsoft scraped their journalism, including paywalled articles, into training datasets, removed copyright management information, and reproduce passages in outputs. The complaint adds federal and state trademark dilution claims over hallucinated content attributed to the papers and seeks destruction of models and datasets that incorporate their works.","sources":["https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/gov.uscourts.nysd_.672142.1.0.pdf","https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/990932/seattle-times-newsday-lawsuit-openai-microsoft"]},{"id":"wikihow-v-openai","name":"wikiHow v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"wikiHow","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-07171","filed":"2026-08-21","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"The how-to publisher alleges OpenAI copied more than 11,000 of its articles for AI training, bringing direct and vicarious infringement and DMCA 1202(b)(1) claims. Stayed by joint stipulation in September 2026 pending summary judgment rulings in MDL No. 3143.","sources":["https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/wikihow-sues-openai-copyright-infringement-over-ai-training-2026-08-24/"]},{"id":"newscorp-v-perplexity","name":"Dow Jones & NYP Holdings v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"Dow Jones & Company; NYP Holdings (News Corp)","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-07984","filed":"2024-10-21","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement","unfair-competition","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"WSJ and NY Post owners allege Perplexity's answer engine copies and republishes their reporting verbatim and falsely attributes its summaries. Judge Failla denied Perplexity's motion to dismiss or transfer in full on August 21, 2025, and 2026 discovery orders have compelled production of additional Perplexity logs and searches. A pretrial conference is set for December 14, 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc/","https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv07984/630270/65/0.pdf"]},{"id":"britannica-v-perplexity","name":"Encyclopaedia Britannica & Merriam-Webster v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; Merriam-Webster, Inc.","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-07546","filed":"2025-09-10","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"The reference publishers allege Perplexity's answer engine copies their entries and definitions and diverts their traffic, and that it attaches their marks to hallucinated or incomplete content. Discovery is under way while Perplexity's partial motion to dismiss the output-based claim remains pending.","sources":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.649196/gov.uscourts.nysd.649196.1.0.pdf","https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-perplexity-over-ai-answer-engine-2025-09-11/"]},{"id":"nyt-v-perplexity","name":"The New York Times Co. v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"The New York Times Company","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-10106","filed":"2025-12-05","status":"active","stage":"motion-to-dismiss","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"The Times alleges Perplexity copies and distributes its journalism, including paywalled content, through retrieval-augmented generation and attributes hallucinated text to the paper. Judge Preska accepted it as related to Chicago Tribune v. Perplexity (1:25-cv-10094); Perplexity's renewed partial motion to dismiss, filed April 2026, targets the output-based, secondary liability, and trademark counts and was pending as of September 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71997720/the-new-york-times-company-v-perplexity-ai-inc/","https://www.nytco.com/press/the-times-sues-perplexity-ai/","https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-perplexity-ai-infringing-copyright-works-2025-12-05/"]},{"id":"cnn-v-perplexity","name":"Cable News Network, Inc. v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"Cable News Network, Inc.","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-04427","filed":"2026-05-28","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"CNN alleges Perplexity copies its reporting and violates its trademarks under the Lanham Act by implying an affiliation between the two companies that does not exist.","sources":["https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/CNN-v-Perplexity.pdf","https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/media/cnn-sues-perplexity-ai-copyright"]},{"id":"yomiuri-v-perplexity","name":"Yomiuri Shimbun v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"The Yomiuri Shimbun group companies","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"Japan","court":"Tokyo District Court","caseNumber":null,"filed":"2025-08-07","status":"active","stage":"motion-to-dismiss","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Copyright suit by Yomiuri Shimbun group companies seeking roughly 2.17 billion yen in damages from Perplexity. At the first oral hearing in May 2026, Perplexity asked the court to reject the suit.","sources":["https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20260526-GYT1T00339/"]},{"id":"nikkei-asahi-v-perplexity","name":"Nikkei & Asahi Shimbun v. Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"Nikkei Inc.; The Asahi Shimbun Company","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"Japan","court":"Tokyo District Court","caseNumber":null,"filed":"2025-08-26","status":"active","stage":"motion-to-dismiss","claims":["copyright-infringement","unfair-competition"],"summary":"The two publishers seek an injunction, deletion of stored articles, and 2.2 billion yen each in damages, alleging Perplexity ignored robots.txt, copied articles including paywalled Nikkei content, and displayed their names alongside inaccurate answers in violation of Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Act.","sources":["https://www.nikkei.co.jp/nikkeiinfo/en/news/release_en_20250826_01.pdf","https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/08/26/japan/crime-legal/japan-newspapers-sue-ai-startup/"]},{"id":"advance-local-v-cohere","name":"Advance Local Media et al. v. Cohere","plaintiff":"Advance Local Media, Conde Nast, The Atlantic, Forbes, Guardian News & Media, Insider, Los Angeles Times, McClatchy, Newsday, Plain Dealer, Politico, The Republican, Toronto Star, Vox Media","defendants":["Cohere Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-01305","filed":"2025-02-13","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"Fourteen publishers allege Cohere copies their articles to train its Command models and serves verbatim copies, excerpts, and substitutive summaries through retrieval, and that hallucinated articles bear their marks. Judge McMahon denied Cohere's partial motion to dismiss on November 13, 2025; summary judgment motions are due December 18, 2026.","sources":["https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Doc-59-Decision-and-Order-Denying-Partial-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf","https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/advance-local-media-llc-1094877471"]},{"id":"penske-v-google","name":"Penske Media Corp. v. Google (AI Overviews)","plaintiff":"Penske Media Corporation and affiliated publications (Rolling Stone, Billboard, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, others)","defendants":["Google LLC","Alphabet Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (D.D.C.)","court":"United States District Court for the District of Columbia","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-03192","filed":"2025-09-12","status":"active","stage":"motion-to-dismiss","claims":["antitrust"],"summary":"First major US publisher suit over Google's AI Overviews, alleging Google uses its search monopoly to force publishers to supply content for AI summaries that cut referral traffic. Judge Mehta held a hearing on Google's motion to dismiss on August 25, 2026, consolidated with Chegg v. Google, and had not ruled as of late August 2026.","sources":["https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/14/rolling-stone-owner-penske-media-sues-google-over-ai-summaries/"]},{"id":"thomson-reuters-v-ross","name":"Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence","plaintiff":"Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH","defendants":["ROSS Intelligence Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (D. Del.; 3d Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the District of Delaware; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","caseNumber":"1:20-cv-00613 (3d Cir. No. 25-2153)","filed":"2020-05-06","status":"active","stage":"appeal","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Thomson Reuters alleges ROSS copied Westlaw headnotes to build an AI legal research tool. On February 11, 2025 Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, granted Thomson Reuters partial summary judgment on direct infringement for 2,243 headnotes and rejected ROSS's fair use defense, noting only non-generative AI was before him. He certified the originality and fair use questions for interlocutory appeal; the Third Circuit heard argument on June 11, 2026 and had not ruled as of September 2026.","sources":["https://www.hunton.com/assets/htmldocuments/Thomson-Reuters-v-ROSS.pdf","https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17131648/thomson-reuters-enterprise-centre-gmbh-v-ross-intelligence-inc/","https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2026/july/third-circuit-hears-oral-argument"]},{"id":"authors-guild-v-openai","name":"Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI (consolidated)","plaintiff":"Authors Guild, John Grisham, George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, David Baldacci, Michael Connelly, others","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc.","Microsoft Corporation"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:23-cv-08292 (part of MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2023-09-19","status":"consolidated","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Putative class action by novelists and the Authors Guild alleging OpenAI trained on copyrighted books. Now part of the book-author class track in MDL No. 3143 with the transferred Tremblay and Silverman cases; on October 27, 2025 Judge Stein denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint's output-based infringement claim. Summary judgment motions were filed by the September 4, 2026 deadline, and class certification briefing is scheduled to follow the summary judgment ruling.","sources":["https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-file-class-action-suit-against-openai/","https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf"]},{"id":"silverman-v-openai","name":"Tremblay / Silverman v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, Richard Kadrey, and other authors","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal., transferred to S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (transferred from the Northern District of California)","caseNumber":"3:23-cv-03223 and 3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal.); 1:25-cv-03482 and 1:25-cv-03483 (S.D.N.Y., MDL No. 3143)","filed":"2023-06-28","status":"consolidated","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Related author class actions alleging OpenAI trained on copyrighted books obtained from shadow libraries. In N.D. Cal. the vicarious infringement, DMCA, negligence, and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed in February 2024 and the UCL claim in July 2024, leaving direct infringement. The cases were transferred into MDL No. 3143 in April 2025 and proceed on its book-author class track.","sources":["https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ucl-claim-dismiss-openai-case.pdf","https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf"]},{"id":"kadrey-v-meta","name":"Kadrey v. Meta Platforms (Llama)","plaintiff":"Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and other authors","defendants":["Meta Platforms, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"3:23-cv-03417","filed":"2023-07-07","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Authors allege Meta trained Llama on pirated books. On June 25, 2025 Judge Chhabria granted Meta partial summary judgment on fair use as to training for these plaintiffs, while stating the ruling does not mean Meta's training use is lawful and leaving the torrent distribution claim live. In 2026 he allowed a contributory infringement claim based on BitTorrent seeding and on July 8 denied the authors' request for an interlocutory appeal; summary judgment briefing on the remaining claims is set to begin in December 2026.","sources":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv03417/415175/598/","https://torrentfreak.com/judge-allows-bittorrent-seeding-claims-against-meta-despite-lawyers-lame-excuses/","https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/08/judge-chhabria-denies-kadrey-book-authors-motion-to-seek-an-interlocutory-appeal-of-downloading-part-of-ruling-in-fair-use-decision/"]},{"id":"bartz-v-anthropic","name":"Bartz v. Anthropic","plaintiff":"Andrea Bartz and other authors (certified class)","defendants":["Anthropic PBC"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"4:24-cv-05417 (9th Cir. Nos. 26-5391, 26-5455)","filed":"2024-08-19","status":"settled","stage":"appeal","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Authors alleged Anthropic trained Claude on books, including copies downloaded from pirate libraries. In June 2025 Judge Alsup held that training and print-to-digital conversion were fair use but that building a central library from pirated copies was not, then certified a class; the parties settled for $1.5 billion (about $3,000 per work). Judge Martinez-Olguin granted final approval and entered judgment on July 20, 2026, and appeals of the approval and fee order were filed in August 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/","https://authorsguild.org/news/court-grants-final-approval-anthropic-copyright-settlement/","https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/"]},{"id":"opt-out-authors-v-anthropic","name":"Shakespeare et al. v. Anthropic (Bartz settlement opt-outs)","plaintiff":"Authors who opted out of the Bartz v. Anthropic class settlement","defendants":["Anthropic PBC","Dario Amodei","Benjamin Mann"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"5:26-cv-05931","filed":"2026-06-17","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"More than 100 authors who excluded themselves from the $1.5 billion Bartz settlement filed their own infringement suit over Anthropic's use of their books, also naming two Anthropic co-founders.","sources":["https://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/2026/06/authors-who-opted-out-of-settlement-sue-anthropic-for-infringement/"]},{"id":"publishers-v-google-gemini","name":"Hachette Book Group et al. v. Google (Gemini)","plaintiff":"Hachette Book Group, Cengage, Elsevier, Scott Turow, and others (putative class)","defendants":["Google LLC"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-05870","filed":"2026-07-10","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Book and academic publishers plus author Scott Turow allege Google copied copyrighted books to train its Gemini models. Several of the same publishers and Turow filed a parallel suit against Meta and Mark Zuckerberg in May 2026 (S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-03689).","sources":["https://publishingperspectives.com/2026/07/u-s-publishers-sue-google-alleging-massive-copyright-infringement-behind-its-gemini-ai-service/"]},{"id":"doe-v-github","name":"Doe et al. v. GitHub, OpenAI, Microsoft (Copilot)","plaintiff":"Anonymous open-source developers","defendants":["GitHub, Inc.","Microsoft Corporation","OpenAI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","caseNumber":"4:22-cv-06823 (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)","filed":"2022-11-03","status":"active","stage":"appeal","claims":["dmca-violation","breach-of-contract"],"summary":"Putative class action by open-source developers alleging GitHub Copilot reproduces their code without honoring license attribution requirements. Judge Tigar dismissed the DMCA 1202(b) claim with prejudice in June 2024 for lack of identicality, letting only breach-of-contract claims over open-source licenses proceed, then certified the identicality question for interlocutory appeal and stayed the case. The Ninth Circuit heard argument on February 11, 2026; no opinion had issued as of mid-September 2026.","sources":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.403220/gov.uscourts.cand.403220.253.0_1.pdf","https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2022cv06823/403220/282","https://githubcopilotlitigation.com"]},{"id":"andersen-v-stability","name":"Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, Runway","plaintiff":"Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, others (artist class)","defendants":["Stability AI Ltd.","Stability AI, Inc.","Midjourney, Inc.","DeviantArt, Inc.","Runway AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"3:23-cv-00201","filed":"2023-01-13","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"Class action by visual artists alleging diffusion-model training on LAION-scraped artwork without license. Runway was added in the amended complaint; in August 2024 Judge Orrick let the copyright claims against all four defendants and a Lanham Act claim against Midjourney proceed while dismissing the DMCA claims with prejudice (right of publicity claims had been dismissed in 2023). A June 2026 scheduling order set dispositive motions for June 2027 and a jury trial for September 20, 2027.","sources":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.223.0_3.pdf","https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/13/24220231/stability-midjourney-deviantart-runway-andersen-copyright-class-action-allowed-proceed"]},{"id":"getty-v-stability-us","name":"Getty Images (US) v. Stability AI","plaintiff":"Getty Images (US), Inc.","defendants":["Stability AI, Inc.","Stability AI Ltd."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California (refiled from D. Del.)","caseNumber":"3:25-cv-06891 (originally D. Del. 1:23-cv-00135)","filed":"2025-08-14","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement","unfair-competition","dmca-violation"],"summary":"Getty alleges Stable Diffusion was trained on millions of Getty images and reproduces the Getty watermark in some generations. Getty voluntarily dismissed its February 2023 Delaware case and refiled in N.D. Cal. on August 14, 2025; on April 23, 2026 Judge Trina Thompson denied most of Stability's motion to dismiss, dismissing only the DMCA false-CMI claim with leave to amend.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66788385/getty-images-us-inc-v-stability-ai-inc/","https://ipde.com/blog/2025/08/15/getty-images-voluntarily-dismisses-ai-action-to-re-file-in-nd-cal/","https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/04/24/getty-images-mostly-wins-surviving-motion-to-dismiss-claims-except-for-dmca-cmi-claim-but-can-amend-that-claim-in-light-of-judge-thompsons-ruling/"]},{"id":"getty-v-stability-uk","name":"Getty Images (UK) v. Stability AI Ltd.","plaintiff":"Getty Images (US), Inc.; Getty Images International (UK)","defendants":["Stability AI Ltd."],"jurisdiction":"UK (England and Wales)","court":"High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales; Court of Appeal (pending)","caseNumber":"IL-2023-000007; [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)","filed":"2023-01","status":"judgment","stage":"appeal","claims":["copyright-infringement","trademark-infringement"],"summary":"After a June 2025 trial, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith handed down judgment on November 4, 2025: Getty had abandoned its training and output claims, its secondary copyright claim was dismissed because a model that does not store or reproduce the works is not an \"infringing copy\", and it won only limited, historic trade mark findings over watermarks in certain older model versions. In December 2025 the judge granted Getty permission to appeal the secondary infringement ruling and refused Stability permission to appeal the trade mark findings; no Court of Appeal hearing had taken place as of September 2026.","sources":["https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/getty-images-v-stability-ai/","https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2025/3343","https://cms.law/en/gbr/legal-updates/getty-images-v-stability-ai-permission-to-appeal-sought-by-getty-images-at-consequentials-hearing"]},{"id":"disney-universal-v-midjourney","name":"Disney Enterprises & Universal City Studios v. Midjourney (consolidated with Warner Bros. v. Midjourney)","plaintiff":"Disney Enterprises, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, DreamWorks Animation; Warner Bros. Entertainment and affiliates (consolidated case)","defendants":["Midjourney, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (C.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Central District of California","caseNumber":"2:25-cv-05275 (lead); 2:25-cv-08376 (consolidated)","filed":"2025-06-11","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"First major Hollywood studio suit against a generative AI company, alleging Midjourney trained on and outputs copies of characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, and the Minions. Midjourney answered in August 2025; Warner Bros. filed a similar suit in September 2025, and the court consolidated the cases for all purposes in November 2025. Training-data discovery disputes were before the magistrate judge in September 2026.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/","https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-universal-sue-image-creator-midjourney-copyright-infringement-2025-06-11/"]},{"id":"studios-v-minimax","name":"Disney, Universal & Warner Bros. v. MiniMax (Hailuo AI)","plaintiff":"Disney Enterprises and affiliates; Universal City Studios and DreamWorks Animation; Warner Bros. Entertainment and affiliates","defendants":["MiniMax (Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.; Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.)"],"jurisdiction":"US (C.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Central District of California","caseNumber":"2:25-cv-08768","filed":"2025-09-16","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Three studios allege China-based MiniMax built its Hailuo image and video generator on their copyrighted characters and markets it as a \"Hollywood studio in your pocket\". The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on May 22, 2026; the defendants answered with a counterclaim in June 2026.","sources":["https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/disney-universal-warner-bros-discovery-sue-chinas-minimax-copyright-infringement-2025-09-16/","https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/disney-warner-bros-discovery-nbcu-lawsuit-minimax-chinese-ai-company-1236520395/"]},{"id":"kneschke-v-laion","name":"Kneschke v. LAION e.V.","plaintiff":"Robert Kneschke (photographer)","defendants":["LAION e.V."],"jurisdiction":"Germany (EU)","court":"Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), I. Zivilsenat; previously Landgericht Hamburg and Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg","caseNumber":"I ZR 281/25 (BGH); 5 U 104/24 (OLG Hamburg); 310 O 227/23 (LG Hamburg)","filed":"2023","status":"active","stage":"appeal","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"A photographer sued LAION over the download of his photo while building the LAION-5B image-text dataset. The Hamburg Regional Court dismissed the claim in September 2024 under the scientific research text and data mining exception, and on December 10, 2025 the Hamburg Higher Regional Court dismissed his appeal, holding that both the research and general TDM exceptions applied and that his natural-language opt-out was not shown to be machine-readable in 2021. The Federal Court of Justice heard the further appeal on September 3, 2026 and scheduled its decision for December 17, 2026.","sources":["https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Termine/IZR281-25.html","https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/germany/higher-regional-court-hamburg-confirms-ai-training-was-permitted-(kneschke-v,-d-,-laion)"]},{"id":"concord-v-anthropic","name":"Concord Music Group v. Anthropic","plaintiff":"Concord Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, ABKCO, and other music publishers","defendants":["Anthropic PBC"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California (transferred from M.D. Tenn.)","caseNumber":"5:24-cv-03811 (originally M.D. Tenn. 3:23-cv-01092)","filed":"2023-10-18","status":"active","stage":"summary-judgment","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"Music publishers allege Claude was trained on copyrighted song lyrics and outputs them on request. The case moved to N.D. Cal. in June 2024; the parties stipulated to output guardrails in January 2025, and Judge Eumi Lee denied a preliminary injunction on March 25, 2025. Cross-motions for summary judgment were pending as of September 2026, when later suits by Round Hill Music and by Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell were related to this case.","sources":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431519/gov.uscourts.cand.431519.321.0.pdf","https://www.billboard.com/business/legal/anthropic-claude-ai-music-publishers-lyrics-lawsuit-1235427547/"]},{"id":"concord-v-anthropic-ii","name":"Concord Music Group v. Anthropic, Amodei & Mann (piracy claims)","plaintiff":"Music publishers led by Concord Music Group","defendants":["Anthropic PBC","Dario Amodei","Benjamin Mann"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"5:26-cv-00880","filed":"2026-01-28","status":"active","stage":"motion-to-dismiss","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"After the court denied leave to add piracy allegations to the first Concord case, the publishers filed a second suit alleging Anthropic obtained song lyrics through piracy, covering more than 20,000 songs by their count. Anthropic and Amodei filed partial motions to dismiss in August 2026, with a hearing set for November 4, 2026.","sources":["https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-faces-new-music-publisher-lawsuit-over-alleged-piracy-2026-01-28/"]},{"id":"sony-warner-chappell-v-anthropic","name":"Sony Music Publishing & Warner Chappell Music v. Anthropic, Amodei & Mann","plaintiff":"Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC; Warner Chappell Music, Inc.; affiliated publishers","defendants":["Anthropic PBC","Dario Amodei","Benjamin Mann"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"5:26-cv-09217","filed":"2026-08-28","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["copyright-infringement","dmca-violation"],"summary":"The publishing arms of Sony Music and Warner Music allege direct infringement by torrenting against Anthropic and two co-founders, contributory infringement against the co-founders, and direct infringement and removal of copyright management information against Anthropic. On September 8, 2026 the case was related to Concord Music Group v. Anthropic and reassigned to Judge Eumi Lee.","sources":["https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/now-sony-music-publishing-and-warner-chappell-sue-anthropic-in-multi-billion-dollar-lawsuit-one-of-the-largest-and-most-blatant-ongoing-thefts-of-intellectual-property-in-history/","https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sony-warner-music-sue-anthropic-over-songs-used-ai-training-2026-08-31/"]},{"id":"riaa-v-suno","name":"UMG Recordings et al. v. Suno (RIAA-coordinated)","plaintiff":"UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment and affiliated labels (Warner labels dismissed after settling)","defendants":["Suno, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (D. Mass.)","court":"United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-11611","filed":"2024-06-24","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Major labels allege Suno trained its music-generation model on copyrighted recordings. Warner Music Group settled with Suno in November 2025 and its labels were dismissed; UMG and Sony remain in the case, with fact discovery scheduled to close September 30, 2026. Companion case against Udio proceeds in S.D.N.Y.","sources":["https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/UMG-Recordings-et-al-v-Suno-Inc-et-al-Complaint.pdf","https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/warner-music-group-settles-copyright-case-with-suno-licensed-ai-music-2025-11-25/"]},{"id":"riaa-v-udio","name":"UMG Recordings et al. v. Uncharted Labs (Udio)","plaintiff":"Sony Music Entertainment and Arista Records (UMG, Capitol, and Warner labels dismissed after settling)","defendants":["Uncharted Labs, Inc. (d/b/a Udio)"],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-04777","filed":"2024-06-24","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Companion case to the Suno suit with the same training-data theory. UMG settled with Udio in October 2025 and Warner Music Group in November 2025, and their claims were dismissed; Sony's claims continue, and on June 29, 2026 the court denied the remaining plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.","sources":["https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Sony-Music-et-al-v-Uncharted-Labs-dba-Udio-Complaint.pdf","https://apnews.com/article/udio-suno-ai-music-universal-b90f9f5f968101ef617e41c5369da02a","https://investors.wmg.com/news-events/news-releases/news-details/2025/WARNER-MUSIC-GROUP-AND-UDIO-COLLABORATE-TO-BUILD-A-NEW-LICENSED-MUSIC-CREATION-SERVICE/default.aspx"]},{"id":"gema-v-openai","name":"GEMA v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"GEMA (German music rights collecting society)","defendants":["Two OpenAI group companies"],"jurisdiction":"Germany (EU)","court":"Landgericht Muenchen I (Munich Regional Court I), 42nd Civil Chamber; appeal to Oberlandesgericht Muenchen","caseNumber":"42 O 14139/24 (appeal 6 U 3662/25 e)","filed":"2024","status":"judgment","stage":"appeal","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"On November 11, 2025 the Munich Regional Court largely granted GEMA's claims for an injunction, information, and damages over the lyrics of nine German songs, while dismissing claims based on personality rights. According to the published headnotes, memorization of lyrics in the model is a reproduction, the text and data mining exception covers compiling training data but not the training itself, and the operators are liable for infringing outputs. The judgment is not final; OpenAI has appealed to the Munich Higher Regional Court.","sources":["https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php","https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204"]},{"id":"gema-v-suno","name":"GEMA v. Suno","plaintiff":"GEMA (German music rights collecting society)","defendants":["Suno, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"Germany (EU)","court":"Landgericht Muenchen I (Munich Regional Court I), 42nd Civil Chamber","caseNumber":"42 O 763/25","filed":"2025-01-21","status":"judgment","stage":"closed","claims":["copyright-infringement"],"summary":"On July 31, 2026 the Munich Regional Court mostly granted GEMA's claims for an injunction, information, and damages over six well-known songs, including \"Daddy Cool\" and \"Forever Young\", finding infringing reproductions in Suno's US training (where it held fair use did not apply), in models stored in Germany, and in outputs. The court's press release says Suno used stream-ripping to extract the works from YouTube, circumventing a technical protection measure. The first-instance judgment is not final, and Suno said it was reviewing its options, including an appeal.","sources":["https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2026/16.php","https://www.tagesschau.de/kultur/urteil-gema-vs-suno-100.html"]},{"id":"lehrman-v-lovo","name":"Lehrman v. Lovo","plaintiff":"Paul Skye Lehrman, Linnea Sage (voice actors)","defendants":["Lovo, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:24-cv-03770","filed":"2024-05-16","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["right-of-publicity","consumer-protection","breach-of-contract","copyright-infringement"],"summary":"Voice actors allege their voices were cloned and sold as text-to-speech products without consent. On July 10, 2025 Judge Oetken let the New York Civil Rights Law, consumer protection, contract, and one copyright claim over an original recording proceed, dismissed the Lanham Act and several other claims, and allowed repleading of the training-based copyright claim. The case was stayed on May 28, 2026 after Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, before a ruling on the renewed motion to dismiss.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68535780/lehrman-v-lovo-inc/","https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/Lovo%20v%20Lehrman.pdf"]},{"id":"alvarez-v-meta","name":"Alvarez et al. v. Meta Platforms (face recognition and AI training)","plaintiff":"Francisco Alvarez, Jeremy Wahl, and their minor children (putative nationwide, Illinois, and California classes)","defendants":["Meta Platforms, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Ill.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","caseNumber":"1:26-cv-10773","filed":"2026-09-04","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["privacy","right-of-publicity"],"summary":"Parents and children in Illinois and California allege Meta used Facebook and Instagram photos without consent to build face recognition for its smart glasses and to train generative AI models, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and California privacy and right of publicity law. Meta called the suit without merit.","sources":["https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/meta-sued-over-smart-glasses-collection-of-user-biometric-data","https://www.wired.com/story/meta-sued-over-training-data-for-its-ai-and-face-recognition-systems/"]},{"id":"reddit-v-anthropic","name":"Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC","plaintiff":"Reddit, Inc.","defendants":["Anthropic PBC"],"jurisdiction":"US (California state court)","court":"Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco","caseNumber":"CGC-25-625892","filed":"2025-06-04","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["breach-of-contract","unjust-enrichment","unfair-competition","tort"],"summary":"Reddit alleges Anthropic used Reddit content without permission and in breach of Reddit's user agreement. Anthropic removed the case to federal court, but in March 2026 Judge Trina Thompson remanded it to San Francisco Superior Court, where it proceeds.","sources":["https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/reddit-v-anthropic-remand-order.pdf","https://www.courthousenews.com/reddit-privacy-case-against-anthropic-kicked-back-to-state-court/"]},{"id":"reddit-v-serpapi-perplexity","name":"Reddit, Inc. v. SerpApi, Oxylabs, AWMProxy & Perplexity AI","plaintiff":"Reddit, Inc.","defendants":["SerpApi LLC","Oxylabs UAB","AWMProxy","Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (S.D.N.Y.)","court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York","caseNumber":"1:25-cv-08736","filed":"2025-10-22","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["dmca-violation","tort"],"summary":"Reddit brings DMCA anti-circumvention and related claims against scraping services and Perplexity over the harvesting of Reddit content. On July 31, 2026 Judge Engelmayer largely denied the motions to dismiss, letting the DMCA anti-circumvention and civil conspiracy claims proceed while dismissing the unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims and one DMCA claim against SerpApi.","sources":["https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/perplexity-ai-loses-bid-toss-reddit-lawsuit-over-data-scraping-2026-07-31/"]},{"id":"amazon-v-perplexity","name":"Amazon.com Services v. Perplexity AI (Comet shopping agent)","plaintiff":"Amazon.com Services, LLC","defendants":["Perplexity AI, Inc."],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"3:25-cv-09514 (9th Cir. No. 26-1444)","filed":"2025-11","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["tort"],"summary":"Amazon alleges Perplexity's Comet browser agent accessed password-protected parts of Amazon in violation of federal and California computer-access laws. A preliminary injunction granted on March 9, 2026 was vacated by a published Ninth Circuit opinion on August 4, 2026, which found Amazon unlikely to show that Perplexity \"accessed\" its computers under the CFAA, and the case was remanded.","sources":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/04/26-1444.pdf","https://www.geekwire.com/2026/judge-blocks-perplexitys-ai-bot-from-shopping-on-amazon-in-early-test-of-agentic-commerce/"]},{"id":"musk-v-altman","name":"Musk v. Altman, et al.","plaintiff":"Elon Musk","defendants":["Samuel Altman","OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"4:24-cv-04722","filed":"2024-08-05","status":"active","stage":"trial","claims":["breach-of-contract","unjust-enrichment"],"summary":"Musk sued OpenAI and Altman over OpenAI's conduct and structure, with claims including breach of charitable trust. After a spring 2026 trial, an advisory jury found on May 18, 2026 that the tried claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers adopted that result in a May 20 post-trial order. Remaining claims and OpenAI's counterclaims are still being briefed, a mediator was appointed in July 2026, and no final judgment had been entered as of August 2026.","sources":["https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Musk-v-Altman-et-al/POST-TRIAL-ORDER-RE-ADVISORY-VERDICT-Signed-by-Judge-Yvonne-Gonzalez-Rogers-on-5-20-2026/cand-4:2024-cv-04722-00580","https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/18/musk-altman-openai-trial-verdict.html","https://www.npr.org/2026/05/18/nx-s1-5822366/musk-altman-openai-jury-verdict-claims-dismissed"]},{"id":"xai-v-openai","name":"X.AI Corp. v. OpenAI (trade secrets)","plaintiff":"X.AI Corp.","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"3:25-cv-08133 (9th Cir. No. 26-4486)","filed":"2025-09-24","status":"dismissed","stage":"appeal","claims":["unfair-competition"],"summary":"xAI alleged OpenAI misappropriated its trade secrets. Judge Rita Lin dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend in February 2026, then dismissed the case without leave to amend on June 15, 2026; xAI appealed to the Ninth Circuit in July 2026.","sources":["https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-xai-claims-that-openai-stole-trade-secrets/","https://beckreedriden.com/xai-v-openai-motion-to-dismiss-granted-but-the-story-might-not-be-over/"]},{"id":"x-corp-v-apple-openai","name":"X Corp. & xAI v. Apple and OpenAI (antitrust)","plaintiff":"X Corp.; X.AI LLC (recaptioned SpaceXAI LLC in August 2026)","defendants":["Apple Inc.","OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Tex.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth)","caseNumber":"4:25-cv-00914","filed":"2025-08-25","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["antitrust","unfair-competition"],"summary":"X and xAI bring antitrust, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy claims against Apple and OpenAI over their partnership. Judge Pittman denied the motions to dismiss on November 13, 2025, and an April 2026 amended scheduling order moved trial to January 11, 2027.","sources":["https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191818/x-corp-v-apple-inc/","https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/X-Corp-v-Apple-OpenAI-Order-5-13-26.pdf"]},{"id":"anthropic-v-department-of-war","name":"Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (supply-chain-risk designation)","plaintiff":"Anthropic PBC","defendants":["U.S. Department of War","other federal officials and agencies"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.; D.C. Cir.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (separate petition)","caseNumber":"3:26-cv-01996 (N.D. Cal.); D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049","filed":"2026-03-09","status":"judgment","stage":"closed","claims":["regulatory-investigation"],"summary":"Anthropic challenged the Pentagon's designation of the company as a supply-chain risk. Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction on March 26, 2026, decided cross-motions for summary judgment and entered judgment on August 27, 2026, and press coverage reported the ruling found the 10 U.S.C. 3252 designation unlawful. A separate D.C. Circuit petition over a related designation was argued May 19, 2026 and remained undecided as of late August 2026.","sources":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.252.0.pdf","https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5762971/judge-temporarily-blocks-anthropic-ban","https://www.nextgov.com/artificial-intelligence/2026/08/judge-rules-anthropic-supply-chain-risk-designation-was-illegal-and-baseless/415698/"]},{"id":"florida-ag-v-openai","name":"State of Florida (Office of the Attorney General) v. OpenAI & Sam Altman","plaintiff":"State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General","defendants":["OpenAI entities","Samuel Altman"],"jurisdiction":"US (Florida state court)","court":"Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, Florida","caseNumber":"28-2026-CA-000295","filed":"2026-06-01","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["consumer-protection","tort"],"summary":"Florida's attorney general brought a 10-count suit alleging OpenAI and Altman violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, with negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, and public nuisance claims. OpenAI removed the case to federal court in July 2026, and it was remanded to state court on September 8, 2026.","sources":["https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/openai-filed-stamped-complaint.pdf","https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/florida-ag-brings-first-in-the-nation-state-led-lawsuit-against-openai-and-its-ceo","https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2026/09/09/judge-gives-florida-a-win-in-sending-openai-lawsuit-back-to-state-court/"]},{"id":"ftc-ai-companion-chatbot-inquiry","name":"FTC 6(b) inquiry: AI chatbots acting as companions","plaintiff":"US Federal Trade Commission (Section 6(b) study)","defendants":["Alphabet","Character Technologies","Instagram","Meta","OpenAI","Snap","xAI"],"jurisdiction":"US (federal regulatory)","court":"Federal Trade Commission","caseNumber":null,"filed":"2025-09-11","status":"active","stage":"discovery","claims":["regulatory-investigation"],"summary":"The FTC issued Section 6(b) orders to seven companies seeking information about consumer AI chatbots that act as companions. Section 6(b) studies gather information without a specific law enforcement purpose; no staff report had been published as of September 2026. The FTC's earlier 6(b) study of AI partnerships and investments (Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic) concluded with a staff report in January 2025.","sources":["https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-launches-inquiry-ai-chatbots-acting-companions","https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-issues-staff-report-ai-partnerships-investments-study"]},{"id":"garcia-v-character-ai","name":"Garcia v. Character Technologies","plaintiff":"Megan Garcia (estate of Sewell Setzer III)","defendants":["Character Technologies, Inc.","Noam Shazeer","Daniel De Freitas","Google LLC"],"jurisdiction":"US (M.D. Fla.)","court":"United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida","caseNumber":"6:24-cv-01903","filed":"2024-10-22","status":"settled","stage":"closed","claims":["tort"],"summary":"Wrongful-death and product-liability suit alleging Character.AI's chatbot contributed to a 14-year-old's suicide. In May 2025 Judge Conway granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part, declining at that stage to hold that the chatbot's output was protected speech. The parties notified the court of a settlement and the case was dismissed on January 7, 2026; reports said Character.AI and Google were finalizing settlements in related family suits, and terms were not disclosed.","sources":["https://molawyersmedia.com/2026/01/09/google-character-ai-chatbot-lawsuit-settlement/","https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20260612e78","https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-m-d-flo-orl-div/117299600.html"]},{"id":"chatgpt-product-liability-jccp","name":"ChatGPT Product Liability Cases (JCCP No. 5431), including Raine v. OpenAI","plaintiff":"Matthew and Maria Raine and other individual plaintiffs and estates","defendants":["OpenAI, Inc. and affiliated entities","Microsoft Corporation (in some coordinated cases)"],"jurisdiction":"US (California state court)","court":"Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (coordination proceeding)","caseNumber":"JCCP No. 5431 (Raine: CGC-25-628528)","filed":"2025-08-26","status":"consolidated","stage":"complaint","claims":["tort"],"summary":"Wrongful-death and product-liability suits against OpenAI over ChatGPT, beginning with Raine v. OpenAI in August 2025 and a wave of seven suits filed in November 2025. On February 3, 2026 the cases were coordinated in San Francisco as the ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, and in August 2026 Judge Ethan Schulman approved a plaintiffs' leadership structure.","sources":["https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2510216/san-francisco-judge-approves-leadership-team-for-chatgpt-product-liability-cases"]},{"id":"tumbler-ridge-v-openai","name":"Tumbler Ridge shooting suits against OpenAI & Sam Altman","plaintiff":"Victims and families connected to the Tumbler Ridge mass shooting","defendants":["OpenAI entities","Samuel Altman"],"jurisdiction":"US (N.D. Cal.)","court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of California","caseNumber":"Multiple, e.g. 3:26-cv-03702 (Schofield v. Altman), 3:26-cv-09377 (Hoekstra v. Altman)","filed":"2026-04-29","status":"active","stage":"complaint","claims":["tort"],"summary":"Seven suits filed in April 2026 and 30 more in September 2026 accuse OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman of negligence, aiding and abetting a mass shooting, and product liability.","sources":["https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/02/openai-lawsuits-tumbler-ridge-mass-shooting","https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/02/openai-faces-30-more-lawsuits-tied-to-tumbler-ridge-shooting/"]}]}