{ "total": 61, "limit": 50, "offset": 0, "records": [ { "fields": { "case_name": "Advance Local Media v. Cohere", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory copyright infringement", "inducement", "trademark infringement", "false designation of origin" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": "Cohere", "docket": "1:25-cv-01305", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Plaintiffs are a publisher consortium (Conde Nast, Advance and others). Docket from BakerHostetler tracker. No damages figure read.", "orgs": [ "Cohere" ], "outcome": "2025-11-13: Cohere's (partial) motion to dismiss denied; plausible claims found for substitutive summaries, secondary liability, and trademark/false designation over hallucinated articles bearing publisher marks.", "plaintiff_type": "publishers", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Settlement checked 2026-09-18: no settlement, consent judgment or dismissal appears on the S.D.N.Y. docket 1:25-cv-01305; the case is in discovery after the 2025-11-13 denial of Cohere's partial motion to dismiss. settlement_usd stays null because no defendant has agreed to pay anything.", "training_data_at_issue": "News and magazine articles allegedly used to train Cohere Command models and served via RAG", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd. Docket and outcome were already correct; nothing new to add there.", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/advanced-local-media-llc--v-cohere-inc" }, "id": "litigation:advance-local-media-v-cohere", "name": "Advance Local Media v. Cohere", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Cohere": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "loeb.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69636122/advance-local-media-llc-v-cohere-inc", "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/advanced-local-media-llc--v-cohere-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/advanced-local-media-llc--v-cohere-inc" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Alvarez v. Meta Platforms", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(a)", "BIPA 15(b)", "BIPA 15(c)", "California common-law right of publicity", "Cal. Civ. Code 3344(a)", "California Constitution privacy" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Meta", "docket": "1:26-cv-10773", "filed": "2026-09-04", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint caption and counts. Seeks statutory $1,000 per negligent and $5,000 per intentional/reckless BIPA violation; no aggregate figure pleaded (CAFA $5M jurisdictional threshold is not a damages demand). Plaintiffs include minors.", "orgs": [ "Meta" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Complaint filed 2026-09-04 (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-10773, Judge April M. Perry, PACER case id 507320); the docket through 2026-09-17 holds only case-opening entries and pro hac vice applications and orders (ECF 14-15).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-10773, Alvarez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., filed 2026-09-04, Judge April M. Perry, not terminated. No settlement and no damages total on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Faces in Facebook/Instagram photos allegedly used for biometric identifiers and to train generative AI (Emu, Muse Image) and NameTag", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'filed' is still right. Class complaint is 66 pages; no ad damnum figure read, so damages_sought_usd left null.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:alvarez-v-meta-platforms", "name": "Alvarez v. Meta Platforms", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Meta": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320.1.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74753032/alvarez-v-meta-platforms-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320/gov.uscourts.ilnd.507320.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Amer v. Eleven Labs Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Eleven Labs Inc.", "docket": "1:26-cv-05437", "filed": "2026-05-11", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: Steven C. Seeger. A c", "orgs": [ "Eleven Labs Inc." ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss pending, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Eleven Labs moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on 2026-08-17 (ECF 16). On 2026-08-25 Judge Steven C. Seeger set the response for 2026-09-25 and the reply for 2026-10-20 (ECF 19), and on 2026-08-26 he stayed ALL discovery pending the ruling on that motion (ECF 20).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05437, filed 2026-05-11, Judge Steven C. Seeger. One of nine parallel suits by the same seven Chicago journalist plaintiffs (Amer, Dorcus, Flowers, Lacour, Marin, Nassif, Rogers), each against a different AI company. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from publicly distributed recordings of journalists, broadcasters, narrators, podcasters and voice actors and used to train the Eleven v3, Eleven Multilingual, Eleven Turbo and Eleven Flash models and the Instant and Professional Voice Cloning products", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' is correct and now dated. The discovery stay is the distinguishing fact in this one.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:amer-v-eleven-labs-inc", "name": "Amer v. Eleven Labs Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Eleven Labs Inc.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460.1.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73326647/amer-v-eleven-labs-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500460.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "American Federation of Musicians v. Universal Music Group and Warner Records", "claims": [ "breach of collective bargaining agreement (SRLA new-use provision)" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "Universal Music Group", "Warner Records", "Atlantic Recording Corp." ], "docket": "1:26-cv-04760", "filed": "2026-06-05", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "A suit about who gets paid from AI licensing deals already in the registry (UMG to Udio, Warner to Suno and Udio). The union is a party, so the independent account is MBW (2026-07-28 amended-complaint report). plaintiff_type 'individuals' approximates a union suing on members' behalf.", "orgs": [ "Universal Music Group", "Warner Records", "Atlantic Recording Corp." ], "outcome": "Motions to dismiss fully briefed, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. First amended complaint 2026-07-24; AFM's opposition was filed 2026-09-04 (ECF 50) and the defendants' reply briefs 2026-09-11 (ECF 51-52), before Judge Edgardo Ramos.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-04760-ER, filed 2026-06-05, Judge Edgardo Ramos, not terminated. CourtListener still carries the original caption, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada v. Warner Music Group Corp., because the amendment substituting Warner Records has not changed the docket caption. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Members' recordings licensed by the labels to Suno and Udio for AI training without the new-use notice and payment the Sound Recording Labor Agreement requires", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null. Caption drift is worth recording so a later round does not treat this as a different case.", "url": "https://www.afm.org/2026/08/summary-of-the-afm-v-universal-warner-and-atlantic-new-use-litigation" }, "id": "litigation:american-federation-of-musicians-v-universal-music-group-and-warner-records", "name": "American Federation of Musicians v. Universal Music Group and Warner Records", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Atlantic Recording Corp.": [ "defendant" ], "Universal Music Group": [ "defendant" ], "Warner Records": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "afm.org", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73446028/american-federation-of-musicians-of-the-united-states-and-canada-v-warner", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73446028/american-federation-of-musicians-of-the-united-states-and-canada-v", "https://www.afm.org/2026/08/summary-of-the-afm-v-universal-warner-and-atlantic-new-use-litigation" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.afm.org/2026/08/summary-of-the-afm-v-universal-warner-and-atlantic-new-use-litigation" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Andersen v. Stability AI", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "induced copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202", "false endorsement", "trade dress" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": [ "Stability AI", "Midjourney", "DeviantArt" ], "docket": "3:23-cv-00201", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Earlier motion-to-dismiss rulings split claims (some dismissed) but the per-claim detail was behind collapsed sections and not read, so outcome is null. Reported: fact discovery close 2026-03-13; motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint 2026-01-12; schedule pushed about three months; SJ hearing 2027-02-17; no class certified. BakerHostetler tracker lists a trial date of 2027-04-05.", "orgs": [ "Stability AI", "Midjourney", "DeviantArt" ], "outcome": "No merits ruling as of 2026-09-18. The case is in contested discovery before Judge William H. Orrick III with Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros supervising: Midjourney sought district-judge relief from a magistrate discovery order (ECF 672, opposed 2026-08-04 at ECF 694), and on 2026-09-04 a joint discovery dispute letter and sealing motion were struck as untimely (ECF 734, later withdrawn per ECF 746). No class has been certified and no summary judgment has been decided.", "plaintiff_type": "visual artists", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO, Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., filed 2023-01-13, Judge William Horsley Orrick III, not terminated, with more than 740 docket entries. Stage 'discovery' is right. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Artists' images in LAION datasets used to train Stable Diffusion-based models", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Outcome was empty on the oldest US generative-AI copyright case; this records what is actually happening rather than the 2023 motion-to-dismiss history.", "url": "https://www.bakerlaw.com/andersen-v-stability-ai" }, "id": "litigation:andersen-v-stability-ai", "name": "Andersen v. Stability AI", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "DeviantArt": [ "defendant" ], "Midjourney": [ "defendant" ], "Stability AI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "bakerlaw.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.bakerlaw.com/andersen-v-stability-ai", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.bakerlaw.com/andersen-v-stability-ai" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "ANI v. OpenAI", "claims": [ "copyright infringement (training)", "copyright infringement (outputs)" ], "court": "Delhi High Court", "defendant": "OpenAI", "docket": "CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Delhi High Court)", "jurisdiction": "IN", "note": "INTERIM ruling only; the suit itself continues. 'on appeal' refers to the appeal against the interim order. Appeal details from Business Standard via search (page returned 403). No damages figure read.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "2026-07-24 (single judge, Justice Amit Bansal): interim injunction application DISMISSED; prima facie, training use fell within fair dealing; court found it had jurisdiction despite overseas servers. 2026-09-15: Division Bench issued notice on ANI's appeal, listed 2026-12-05.", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "on appeal", "status_note": "Not on CourtListener or RECAP: this is an Indian suit and the record is held by the Delhi High Court registry (delhihighcourt.nic.in case status / the National Judicial Data Grid), which has no free machine-readable API. Suit number CS(COMM) 1028/2024, instituted 2024-11-18. The Division Bench appeal from the 2026-07-24 single-judge order carries its own, separate number that could not be read from a free source.", "training_data_at_issue": "ANI news content allegedly used to train ChatGPT and reproduced in outputs", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from ailawsuittracker.com: Docket recorded from a third-party tracker rather than the court, because the court's own registry is not machine-fetchable. Treat the suit number as B-grade until read from a Delhi High Court order sheet.", "url": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/delhi-high-court-rules-anis-copyright-claims-against-openai-2026-07-28_en" }, "id": "litigation:ani-v-openai", "name": "ANI v. OpenAI", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases?q=ANI", "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/delhi-high-court-rules-anis-copyright-claims-against-openai-2026-07-28_en" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/delhi-high-court-rules-anis-copyright-claims-against-openai-2026-07-28_en" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Authors Guild v. OpenAI", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory copyright infringement", "vicarious copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft" ], "docket": "1:23-cv-08292", "filed": "2023-09-19", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Part of MDL 1:25-md-03143. Putative class action; parties stipulated summary judgment precedes class certification. Tracker says discovery and SJ briefing underway; stage recorded as discovery conservatively. No damages figure read.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft" ], "outcome": "2025-10-27: Judge Stein denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss the consolidated class plaintiffs' output-based direct infringement claim (plot-level summaries may infringe). No class certified; no fair use ruling.", "plaintiff_type": "authors", "stage": "summary judgment", "status_note": "Settlement checked 2026-09-18: none. The case is consolidated into MDL 3143 before Judge Sidney H. Stein (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-md-03143); the 2025-10-27 ruling let the output-based infringement claim proceed and no class has been certified. No money has been agreed, so settlement_usd stays null.", "training_data_at_issue": "Plaintiffs' copyrighted novels used to train GPT models (specific dataset names not confirmed in sources read)", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd: checked and absent, with the reason it is absent.", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/authors-guild-v-openai" }, "id": "litigation:authors-guild-v-openai", "name": "Authors Guild v. OpenAI", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft": [ "defendant" ], "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/authors-guild-v-openai", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67810584/authors-guild-v-openai-inc", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69879510/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringement-litigation" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/authors-guild-v-openai" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Bartz v. Anthropic", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Anthropic", "docket": "4:24-cv-05417", "filed": "2024-08-19", "jurisdiction": "US", "name": "Bartz v. Anthropic", "note": "Split outcome by conduct, not by count: fair use for training on purchased copies, infringement exposure for the pirated library. Settlement is not a damages award. About 482,460 works on works list, roughly $3,000 to $3,100 per work; about 350 opt-outs, some opt-outs filed follow-on suits (e.g. Cruz v. Anthropic). Settlement is without admission of wrongdoing and is not binding precedent. ailawsu", "orgs": [ "Anthropic" ], "outcome": "June 2025 (Judge Alsup) summary judgment split: training on lawfully purchased books held fair use; acquiring and retaining pirated copies from shadow libraries NOT fair use. Class certified. $1.5B class settlement; final approval granted 2026-07-20 by Judge Martinez-Olguin; attorney fees $101.6M (requested $187.5M). Distribution plan approved 2026-09-15: a first check of roughly $2,203.56 per work-claim and a second of roughly $930, with payments to class members by 2026-11-15.", "plaintiff_type": "authors", "settlement_usd": { "availability": "listed", "basis": null, "currency": "USD", "kind": "point", "max": 1500000000, "min": 1500000000, "note": null, "raw": 1500000000 }, "stage": "settled", "status_note": "Docket correction: CourtListener carries this as N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-05417, filed 2024-08-19, terminated 2026-07-20; the registry's 3:24-cv-05417 is the pre-reassignment division prefix. The $1,500,000,000 in settlement_usd is money Anthropic agreed to pay, correctly recorded as a settlement rather than a verdict or a damages claim.", "training_data_at_issue": "Pirated book libraries (LibGen, Pirate Library Mirror / Books3 referenced) plus purchased and scanned print books", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from chatgptiseatingtheworld.com: Distribution figures are per-class-member payments out of the settlement fund, in USD; they are not a separate settlement and must not be added to settlement_usd.", "url": "https://openclassactions.com/news/anthropic-copyright-settlement-final-approval.php" }, "id": "litigation:bartz-v-anthropic", "name": "Bartz v. Anthropic", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Anthropic": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com", "openclassactions.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc", "https://openclassactions.com/news/anthropic-copyright-settlement-final-approval.php", "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.688.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.917, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 4, "independent_hosts": 4, "sources": 4, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://openclassactions.com/news/anthropic-copyright-settlement-final-approval.php" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Brave Software v. News Corp (News Corp counterclaims)", "claims": [ "copyright infringement (counterclaim)" ], "defendant": "Brave Software", "docket": "3:26-cv-04758", "filed": "2026-07-21", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Brave sued News Corp first after a cease-and-desist (voluntarily dismissed in 2025, refiled May 2026 per chatgptiseatingtheworld); News Corp answered with copyright counterclaims on 2026-07-21 after a year of failed licensing talks. Filed date is the counterclaim date. Court not confirmed from a read source, left null. Counterclaim PDF mirrored at chatgptiseatingtheworld.com.", "orgs": [ "Brave Software" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. News Corporation, Dow Jones & Co. and NYP Holdings answered and filed COUNTERCLAIMS against Brave on 2026-07-22 (ECF 28, refiled after a 2026-07-21 wrong-event filing). Separately, News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd and News Pty Ltd moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on 2026-07-21 (ECF 24); briefing closed with the reply on 2026-09-17 (ECF 46) and the hearing was continued to 2026-11-05 before Judge Jon S. Tigar.", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-04758, Brave Software, Inc. v. News Corporation, filed 2026-05-19, Judge Jon S. Tigar, cause 17:101 copyright infringement, not terminated. An earlier Brave v. News Corporation action, N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-02503, was terminated 2025-06-10 and is a different case. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "News Corp articles allegedly scraped by disguised crawlers and sold as verbatim or near-verbatim summaries to enterprise customers, primarily AI companies, before March 2025", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Registry stage 'filed' is now wrong: a counterclaim is on file and a 12(b) motion is fully briefed with a hearing date.", "url": "https://www.semafor.com/article/07/21/2026/newscorp-accuses-search-engine-brave-of-ai-copyright-infringement" }, "id": "litigation:brave-software-v-news-corp-news-corp-counterclaims", "name": "Brave Software v. News Corp (News Corp counterclaims)", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Brave Software": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "semafor.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73365546/brave-software-inc-v-news-corporation", "https://www.semafor.com/article/07/21/2026/newscorp-accuses-search-engine-brave-of-ai-copyright-infringement" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.semafor.com/article/07/21/2026/newscorp-accuses-search-engine-brave-of-ai-copyright-infringement" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Concord Music v. Anthropic (I)", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory copyright infringement", "vicarious copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202 (CMI removal)" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Anthropic", "docket": "5:24-cv-03811", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Claim-level details from Loeb & Loeb analysis (loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc). Case was transferred into N.D. Cal.; original filing date not read, left null. Whether amended secondary-liability claims were later reinstated not confirmed.", "orgs": [ "Anthropic" ], "outcome": "2025-03-25: preliminary injunction denied (overbroad, no irreparable harm shown). Motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend as to contributory infringement, vicarious infringement and intentional CMI removal; direct infringement not dismissed. Parties stipulated Anthropic maintains existing lyric guardrails. Summary judgment briefing completed; hearing set 2026-10-21 (Judge Lee).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "summary judgment", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03811, filed 2024-06-26, Judge Eumi K. Lee. Book-scanning and destructive-scanning discovery issue statements filed 2026-09-11 (ECF 802-803). Sony Music Publishing v. Anthropic (26-cv-09217) was related in and reassigned to the same judge 2026-09-08.", "training_data_at_issue": "Song lyrics of publisher-owned compositions used to train Claude", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03811 confirmed; discovery disputes live in September 2026.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/15/summary-judgment-briefing-completed-in-concord-music-v-anthropic-i" }, "id": "litigation:concord-music-v-anthropic-i", "name": "Concord Music v. Anthropic (I)", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Anthropic": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "public", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/15/summary-judgment-briefing-completed-in-concord-music-v-anthropic-i", "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id:68889092&type=rd&order_by=entry_date_filed+desc", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68889092/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/15/summary-judgment-briefing-completed-in-concord-music-v-anthropic-i" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Concord Music v. Anthropic (II)", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "damages_sought_usd": { "availability": "listed", "basis": null, "currency": "USD", "kind": "point", "max": 3070000000, "min": 3070000000, "note": null, "raw": 3070000000 }, "defendant": [ "Anthropic", "Dario Amodei", "Benjamin Mann" ], "docket": "5:26-cv-00880", "filed": "2026-01-28", "jurisdiction": "US", "name": "Concord Music v. Anthropic (II)", "note": "$3.07B is statutory damages SOUGHT, not awarded. First amended complaint reported 2026-04-06. Anthropic moved to stay pending Concord I. Tracker mentions a December 2025 deposition ruling, which predates this filing and likely belongs to Concord I; not attributed here.", "orgs": [ "Anthropic", "Dario Amodei", "Benjamin Mann" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Anthropic's dismissal motion is fully briefed before Judge Eumi K. Lee: replies filed 2026-09-14 (ECF 123 and 124) and a statement of recent decision 2026-09-17 (ECF 125).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket reconfirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-00880-EKL, filed 2026-01-28, Judge Eumi K. Lee, not terminated. No settlement: settlement_usd stays null. The $3.07B already in damages_sought_usd is the amount claimed in the complaint, not money anyone has agreed to pay.", "training_data_at_issue": "Songbooks allegedly obtained via BitTorrent from shadow libraries (714 works) and 20,517 works used in training", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Keeps damages sought and settlement strictly apart, which is the field rule this record most risks breaking.", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc-5-26-cv-00880" }, "id": "litigation:concord-music-v-anthropic-ii", "name": "Concord Music v. Anthropic (II)", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Anthropic": [ "defendant" ], "Benjamin Mann": [ "defendant" ], "Dario Amodei": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc-5-26-cv-00880", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72199828/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.124.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.917, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 3, "independent_hosts": 3, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc-5-26-cv-00880" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Disney v. Midjourney", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202(b)" ], "court": "C.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Midjourney", "docket": "2:25-cv-05275", "filed": "2025-06-11", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Plaintiffs include Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm, 20th Century, Universal and DreamWorks. Warner Bros. Discovery filed a separate suit against Midjourney in September 2025 (docket not read, not recorded). Schedule: non-expert discovery closes 2026-09-21, SJ motions due 2026-11-23. Statutory damages sought per work, no total figure.", "orgs": [ "Midjourney", "Disney" ], "outcome": "No merits ruling. 2026-06-15 magistrate Judge Richlin denied Midjourney broad discovery into the studios' own AI use; Midjourney sought review.", "plaintiff": "Disney", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-05275 (Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.), filed 2025-06-11, Judge John A. Kronstadt. Not terminated; hearing transcripts filed 2026-09-16.", "training_data_at_issue": "Images of studio-owned characters allegedly used to train Midjourney and reproduced in outputs", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-05275 confirmed.", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/blog/disney-v-midjourney-explained" }, "id": "litigation:disney-v-midjourney", "name": "Disney v. Midjourney", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Disney": [ "plaintiff" ], "Midjourney": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/blog/disney-v-midjourney-explained", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/blog/disney-v-midjourney-explained" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Doe 1 v. GitHub", "claims": [ "DMCA 1202 CMI removal", "breach of contract" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.", "defendant": [ "GitHub", "Microsoft", "OpenAI" ], "docket": "24-7700 (9th Cir.)", "filed": "2022-11", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "First circuit-level precedent on DMCA 1202 and AI outputs, relevant to the many CMI counts in newer suits (wikiHow, Seattle Times, Sony Music Publishing). Opinion: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/24-7700.pdf. EFF filed an amicus brief for the defendants' position, so read it as an interested account; chatgptiseatingtheworld independently summarises the same holding. Filed date is the month the original complaint was widely reported, not read from the docket.", "orgs": [ "GitHub", "Microsoft", "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "2026-09-16: Ninth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion (No. 24-7700, on appeal from N.D. Cal. 4:22-cv-06823-JST). Panel Thomas, Miller and Blumenfeld; opinion by Judge Miller; judgment filed and entered the same day. The docket text records only 'AFFIRMED'.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "judgment", "status_note": "Settlement checked 2026-09-18: none. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on 2026-09-16 and the panel's reasoning was that a new output does not involve a removal from a copy. The plaintiffs recovered nothing and there is no settlement, so settlement_usd stays null.", "training_data_at_issue": "Public GitHub code used to train Codex and Copilot", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from chatgptiseatingtheworld.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd: checked and absent, with the reason it is absent.", "url": "https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/victory-appeals-court-rejects-expansive-new-copyright-claim" }, "id": "litigation:doe-1-v-github", "name": "Doe 1 v. GitHub", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "month", "_org_roles": { "GitHub": [ "defendant" ], "Microsoft": [ "defendant" ], "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com", "eff.org" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69495342/doe-et-al-v-github-inc-et-al", "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/", "https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/victory-appeals-court-rejects-expansive-new-copyright-claim" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 3, "independent_hosts": 3, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/victory-appeals-court-rejects-expansive-new-copyright-claim" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Dorcus v. Adobe, Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Adobe Inc.", "docket": "1:26-cv-05575", "filed": "2026-05-14", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: John Robert Blakey (r", "orgs": [ "Adobe Inc." ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss pending, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Adobe moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF 24) and filed its supporting memorandum 2026-08-31 (ECF 25). On 2026-09-04 Judge John Robert Blakey set the response for 2026-09-28 and the reply for 2026-10-13 and struck the 2026-09-09 notice-of-motion date (ECF 27). A joint initial status report was filed 2026-09-08 (ECF 28).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05575, filed 2026-05-14, Judge John Robert Blakey, not terminated. Complaint runs 99 pages and names the same seven journalist plaintiffs as the eight sibling suits. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrators and used in Adobe's Firefly generative AI family and its speech products, including Adobe Podcast Enhance Speech and the Translate Video and Translate Audio features", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed and dated.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:dorcus-v-adobe-inc", "name": "Dorcus v. Adobe, Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Adobe Inc.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73340091/dorcus-v-adobe-inc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617.1.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500617.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Dow Jones v. Perplexity", "claims": [ "copyright infringement (RAG database copying)", "copyright infringement (verbatim outputs)", "Lanham Act false designation of origin", "trademark dilution" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": "Perplexity", "docket": "1:24-cv-07984", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Primarily a RAG/output case rather than model training. BakerHostetler reports the 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim motion was also denied; Loeb summary only confirmed jurisdiction/venue. Schedule reported: fact discovery 2026-06-04, expert discovery 2026-09-02. No damages figure read.", "orgs": [ "Perplexity" ], "outcome": "2025-08-21: motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue denied; transfer to N.D. Cal. denied.", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: S.D.N.Y. 1:24-cv-07984, filed 2024-10-21, Judge Katherine Polk Failla. Telephone conference held 2026-09-15; extension granted and a third amended scheduling order to be endorsed (ECF 203-204).", "training_data_at_issue": "WSJ and New York Post articles copied into Perplexity's retrieval-augmented generation index", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: S.D.N.Y. 1:24-cv-07984 confirmed; third amended scheduling order in train.", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/08/dow-jones-and-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc" }, "id": "litigation:dow-jones-v-perplexity", "name": "Dow Jones v. Perplexity", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Perplexity": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "loeb.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/08/dow-jones-and-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/08/dow-jones-and-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Editorial Perfil v. OpenAI and Microsoft", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "unfair competition" ], "court": "Federal Civil and Commercial Courts (Argentina)", "defendant": [ "OpenAI L.L.C.", "Microsoft Corporation", "Microsoft de Argentina S.R.L." ], "filed": "2026-08-26", "jurisdiction": "AR", "note": "Believed to be the first suit by a Spanish-language publisher against either company. Counsel Biscardi & Asociados. Filed date is the date reported by Press Gazette (2026-08-26); Buenos Aires Times is Perfil's own English-language title, so the independent source is Press Gazette's tracker.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI L.L.C.", "Microsoft Corporation", "Microsoft de Argentina S.R.L." ], "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket not machine-fetchable and not on CourtListener or RECAP. The file sits with the Argentine federal civil and commercial courts (Justicia Nacional en lo Civil y Comercial Federal, Buenos Aires); the only public route is the Poder Judicial de la Nacion 'consulta de causas' portal, which needs the expediente number and a captcha and publishes no API. Checked 2026-09-18. No ruling found from a free source, and no settlement.", "training_data_at_issue": "Perfil articles, investigations and interviews, including paywalled content, allegedly scraped and used to train AI models; Bing, Copilot, M365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot and Azure AI answers substitute for site visits", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from ailawsuittracker.com: Recorded as a sourced 'not fetchable' rather than a bare null. The tracker used for the other foreign cases does not carry this one either, which is itself the finding.", "url": "https://batimes.com.ar/news/economy/editorial-perfil-sues-openai-microsoft-over-unauthorised-use-of-journalistic-content.phtml" }, "id": "litigation:editorial-perfil-v-openai-and-microsoft", "name": "Editorial Perfil v. OpenAI and Microsoft", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft Corporation": [ "defendant" ], "Microsoft de Argentina S.R.L.": [ "defendant" ], "OpenAI L.L.C.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "batimes.com.ar" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases?q=ANI", "https://batimes.com.ar/news/economy/editorial-perfil-sues-openai-microsoft-over-unauthorised-use-of-journalistic-content.phtml" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.667, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://batimes.com.ar/news/economy/editorial-perfil-sues-openai-microsoft-over-unauthorised-use-of-journalistic-content.phtml" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "EVOX Productions v. Google", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Google", "docket": "5:26-cv-07013", "filed": "2026-07-09", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Related by Judge Lee to In re Google Generative AI Litigation on 2026-09-09 over EVOX's opposition. EVOX has four AI-training suits (Stanford/ImageNet, Stability AI and others, Google, Midjourney). Docket from ailawsuittracker/PacerMonitor listing.", "orgs": [ "Google" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-07-09 before Judge Trina L. Thompson; the most recent entries are a stipulation 2026-09-08 (ECF 21) and an order terminating motions 2026-09-09 (ECF 22).", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-07013 (docket text also shows 3:26-cv-07013-TLT), EVOX Productions, LLC v. Google LLC, filed 2026-07-09, Judge Trina L. Thompson, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "EVOX professional car photographs allegedly used to train Google's Nano Banana image model", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'filed' is still right.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/11/google-sued-again-in-ai-copyright-lawsuit-by-evox-productions-for-alleged-use-of-images-to-train-nano-banana-model-total-ai-suits-127" }, "id": "litigation:evox-productions-v-google", "name": "EVOX Productions v. Google", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Google": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73598151/evox-productions-llc-v-google-llc", "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/11/google-sued-again-in-ai-copyright-lawsuit-by-evox-productions-for-alleged-use-of-images-to-train-nano-banana-model-total-ai-suits-127" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/11/google-sued-again-in-ai-copyright-lawsuit-by-evox-productions-for-alleged-use-of-images-to-train-nano-banana-model-total-ai-suits-127" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "EVOX Productions v. Midjourney", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "defendant": "Midjourney", "docket": "2:26-cv-08408", "filed": "2026-07-30", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "US AI copyright suit no. 130 per the tracker; filed by Susman Godfrey and Cowan DeBaets. Filed date is the tracker's post date. One source.", "orgs": [ "Midjourney" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-07-30 before Judge John A. Kronstadt; the docket through 2026-09-15 shows only Midjourney's appearances and pro hac vice orders (ECF 21, 23, 24).", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-08408, EVOX Productions LLC v. Midjourney, Inc., filed 2026-07-30, Judge John A. Kronstadt, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "EVOX car photographs contained in the LAION dataset allegedly used to train Midjourney", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket and court were both null; the registry had no court for this record.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/30/evox-productions-maker-of-car-images-enlists-3rd-law-firm-to-files-its-4th-copyright-suit-v-ai-training-use-this-one-v-midjourney" }, "id": "litigation:evox-productions-v-midjourney", "name": "EVOX Productions v. Midjourney", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Midjourney": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/30/evox-productions-maker-of-car-images-enlists-3rd-law-firm-to-files-its-4th-copyright-suit-v-ai-training-use-this-one-v-midjourney", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73698332/evox-productions-llc-v-midjourney-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/07/30/evox-productions-maker-of-car-images-enlists-3rd-law-firm-to-files-its-4th-copyright-suit-v-ai-training-use-this-one-v-midjourney" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "EVOX Productions v. Stability AI, Runway AI, DeviantArt and Hugging Face", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "defendant": [ "Stability AI", "Runway AI", "DeviantArt", "Hugging Face" ], "docket": "2:26-cv-07201", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Hugging Face was added as defendant around 2026-07-03 (chatgptiseatingtheworld). Filed date and court not read, left null. Stage 'discovery' is inferred from answers being filed, not from a scheduling order. Default is not a default judgment; damages would require Rule 55(b)(2). Nvidia's acquisition of Hugging Face (announced 2026-09-03) makes the default consequential.", "orgs": [ "Stability AI", "Runway AI", "DeviantArt", "Hugging Face" ], "outcome": "2026-09-11: the clerk's entry of default against Hugging Face, Inc. (entered 2026-09-04, ECF 45) was set aside and vacated on a joint stipulation, and Hugging Face's time to respond to the complaint was extended (ECF 51, Judge Christina A. Snyder). No default judgment stands.", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-07201-CAS-RAO, EVOX Productions LLC v. Stability AI, Inc., filed 2026-07-02, Judge Christina A. Snyder, not terminated. After the 2026-09-11 order setting aside the clerk's default (ECF 51), Hugging Face's counsel was admitted pro hac vice 2026-09-14 (ECF 52). No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "EVOX car photographs in LAION-linked datasets and the 'Stanford Cars' dataset (8,144 images incl. 225 EVOX photographs, downloaded 90,000+ times) hosted on Hugging Face", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Existing outcome about the vacated default is confirmed against the docket; only the docket number is new.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/07/evox-productions-wins-copyright-suit-v-hugging-face-recently-acquired-by-nvidia-by-default-judgment-hugging-face-failed-to-answer" }, "id": "litigation:evox-productions-v-stability-ai-runway-ai-deviantart-and-hugging-face", "name": "EVOX Productions v. Stability AI, Runway AI, DeviantArt and Hugging Face", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "DeviantArt": [ "defendant" ], "Hugging Face": [ "defendant" ], "Runway AI": [ "defendant" ], "Stability AI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73569472/evox-productions-llc-v-stability-ai-inc", "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/07/evox-productions-wins-copyright-suit-v-hugging-face-recently-acquired-by-nvidia-by-default-judgment-hugging-face-failed-to-answer" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.667, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/09/07/evox-productions-wins-copyright-suit-v-hugging-face-recently-acquired-by-nvidia-by-default-judgment-hugging-face-failed-to-answer" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Flowers v. Microsoft Corporation", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Microsoft Corporation", "docket": "1:26-cv-05491", "filed": "2026-05-12", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: Steven C. Seeger. A c", "orgs": [ "Microsoft Corporation" ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss pending, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Microsoft moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on 2026-08-10 (ECF 18). On 2026-08-26 Judge Steven C. Seeger set the response for 2026-09-23 and the reply for 2026-10-07 (ECF 20), and stayed ALL discovery pending the ruling on that motion (ECF 19).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05491, Flowers v. Microsoft Corporation, filed 2026-05-12, Judge Steven C. Seeger, not terminated. Same seven journalist plaintiffs and the same discovery stay as Amer v. Eleven Labs, which is before the same judge. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters, narrators and voice actors and used to train the voice synthesis models behind Azure AI Speech, Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft Copilot and Dynamics 365 Contact Center, including speech assets acquired with Nuance Communications", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed and dated.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:flowers-v-microsoft-corporation", "name": "Flowers v. Microsoft Corporation", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft Corporation": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522.1.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73332522/flowers-v-microsoft-corporation" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500522.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "GEMA v. OpenAI", "claims": [ "reproduction (s16 UrhG)", "adaptation (s23 UrhG)", "communication to the public (s19a UrhG)", "authors' personality rights" ], "court": "Munich Regional Court I (LG Munchen I)", "defendant": "OpenAI", "docket": "42 O 14139/24", "jurisdiction": "DE", "note": "Not final. Appeal to OLG Munchen reported pending with no decision found as of retrieval. Damages amount not set in the judgment summaries read.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "Judgment 2025-11-11: memorisation of lyrics in model parameters held to be reproduction outside the TDM exception; reproduction, adaptation and making-available claims upheld; injunction, disclosure and damages in principle. Personality-rights claim REJECTED.", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "on appeal", "training_data_at_issue": "Lyrics of nine German songs (e.g. 'Atemlos', 'Manner') memorised and reproduced by ChatGPT", "url": "https://cms.law/en/deu/legal-updates/gema-vs.-openai-munich-regional-court-i-issues-landmark-copyright-decision" }, "id": "litigation:gema-v-openai", "name": "GEMA v. OpenAI", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "public", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-16", "method": "refinery-corroborate", "source_hosts": [ "cms.law", "urheber.info" ], "source_urls": [ "https://urheber.info/diskurs/openai-legt-berufung-ein", "https://cms.law/en/deu/legal-updates/gema-vs.-openai-munich-regional-court-i-issues-landmark-copyright-decision" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 2, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://cms.law/en/deu/legal-updates/gema-vs.-openai-munich-regional-court-i-issues-landmark-copyright-decision" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "GEMA v. Suno", "claims": [ "reproduction for training", "reproduction via memorisation", "communication to the public", "output reproduction", "US copyright (applied by German court)" ], "court": "Munich Regional Court I (LG Munchen I)", "defendant": "Suno", "docket": "42 O 763/25", "jurisdiction": "DE", "note": "Not final; appeal expected, likely on extraterritorial application of US law and the memorisation standard. First European ruling on a generative music model.", "orgs": [ "Suno" ], "outcome": "Judgment 2026-07-31: infringement found for memorisation reproduction, communication to the public and outputs; TDM exception rejected; US-law infringement found and fair use held inapplicable; injunction and disclosure to prepare damages.", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "judgment", "status_note": "Settlement checked 2026-09-18: none. The 2026-07-31 Munich judgment granted injunctive relief and disclosure so that damages can be prepared; no sum has been fixed and nothing has been paid, so settlement_usd stays null. The case is outside CourtListener: the record is held by the Landgericht Muenchen I under file number 42 O 763/25, and German first-instance files are not published in machine-readable form. Any award would be in euros, not USD.", "training_data_at_issue": "Six GEMA-repertoire compositions (incl. Lou Bega, Alphaville), reportedly obtained via YouTube stream-ripping", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from ailawsuittracker.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd: checked and absent, with the reason it is absent.", "url": "https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/creation-of-music-with-generative-ai-may-be-copyright-infringement" }, "id": "litigation:gema-v-suno", "name": "GEMA v. Suno", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "dlapiper.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/creation-of-music-with-generative-ai-may-be-copyright-infringement", "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases?q=Suno" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/creation-of-music-with-generative-ai-may-be-copyright-infringement" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Gerencia 360 Music v. Suno and Bright Data", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory copyright infringement", "DMCA 1201", "DMCA 1202" ], "defendant": [ "Suno", "Bright Data" ], "docket": "3:26-cv-09248", "filed": "2026-08-31", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "US AI copyright suit no. 140 per the tracker; second AI copyright suit naming the data vendor Bright Data, a supply-chain defendant rather than a model developer. Court not read, left null. One source.", "orgs": [ "Suno", "Bright Data" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-08-31 before Judge Charles R. Breyer; Suno waived service on 2026-09-04 and its answer is due 2026-11-02 (ECF 15), with two further executed waivers on 2026-09-11 (ECF 16-17).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-09248, Gerencia 360 Music, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., filed 2026-08-31, Judge Charles R. Breyer, not terminated. The CourtListener caption names Suno only; the registry also lists Bright Data as a defendant, which the caption does not confirm. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Gerencia 360 catalogue allegedly scraped by Bright Data for Suno model training", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Flagging the Bright Data discrepancy rather than silently keeping it.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/31/suno-sued-again-this-time-by-gerencia-360-music-represented-by-same-law-firm-as-round-hill-music" }, "id": "litigation:gerencia-360-music-v-suno-and-bright-data", "name": "Gerencia 360 Music v. Suno and Bright Data", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Bright Data": [ "defendant" ], "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74725556/gerencia-360-music-inc-v-suno-inc", "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/31/suno-sued-again-this-time-by-gerencia-360-music-represented-by-same-law-firm-as-round-hill-music" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/31/suno-sued-again-this-time-by-gerencia-360-music-represented-by-same-law-firm-as-round-hill-music" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK)", "claims": [ "primary copyright infringement", "secondary copyright infringement", "database right", "trade mark infringement s10(1)", "trade mark infringement s10(2)", "trade mark infringement s10(3)", "passing off" ], "court": "UK High Court (Business and Property Courts, ChD)", "defendant": "Stability AI", "docket": "IL-2023-000007; [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", "filed": "2023-01-16", "jurisdiction": "UK", "name": "Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK)", "note": "Appeal status not confirmed in sources read. Territorial question of UK-based training left open.", "orgs": [ "Stability AI", "Getty Images" ], "outcome": "Judgment 2025-11-04 (Joanna Smith J): primary copyright and database right claims abandoned by Getty before judgment (no evidence training occurred in UK). Secondary infringement REJECTED (model weights do not store or reproduce works, so not an infringing copy). Trade marks: limited infringement under s10(1) and s10(2) for watermarks in a small number of outputs from early model versions; s10(3) failed. Passing off not substantively reached.", "plaintiff": "Getty Images", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "on appeal", "status_note": "Permission to appeal granted to Getty on secondary infringement 2025-12-16; Stability refused permission on trade mark findings; no appeal judgment published. No damages: the only money order is costs, Stability's recoverable costs reduced by about 30.6%.", "training_data_at_issue": "Getty images scraped to train Stable Diffusion (training location outside UK)", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-16 from caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk: stage moved from judgment to on appeal", "url": "https://www.lw.com/en/insights/getty-images-v-stability-ai-english-high-court-rejects-secondary-copyright-claim" }, "id": "litigation:getty-images-v-stability-ai-uk", "name": "Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK)", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Getty Images": [ "plaintiff" ], "Stability AI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-16", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk", "lw.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2025/3343", "https://www.lw.com/en/insights/getty-images-v-stability-ai-english-high-court-rejects-secondary-copyright-claim" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 2, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.lw.com/en/insights/getty-images-v-stability-ai-english-high-court-rejects-secondary-copyright-claim" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Getty Images v. Stability AI (US)", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202", "Lanham Act trademark infringement", "trademark dilution", "unfair competition" ], "court": "N.D. Cal. (refiled from D. Del.)", "defendant": "Stability AI", "docket": "1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del.); 3:25-cv-06891 (N.D. Cal.)", "filed": "2023-02-03", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "A search-result snippet of the CourtListener docket reports a 2026-04-23 order granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying in part, with trademark/dilution/unfair-competition claims moving to discovery; the order was not read (CourtListener 403), so it is not recorded in outcome and per-claim results are unknown. Stage may already be discovery.", "orgs": [ "Stability AI", "Getty Images" ], "outcome": "Delaware action voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2025-08-14 and refiled same day in N.D. Cal. (Judge Trina Thompson).", "plaintiff": "Getty Images", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Dockets confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: the live case is N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-06891 (Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd.), filed 2025-08-14, Judge Trina L. Thompson, active through 2026-09-04. The original D. Del. 1:23-cv-00135, filed 2023-02-03, was terminated 2025-08-18 on transfer.", "training_data_at_issue": "Roughly 12 million Getty images allegedly scraped to train Stable Diffusion", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: The live US docket is N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-06891; the Delaware case closed 2025-08-18.", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/getty-v-stability-ai" }, "id": "litigation:getty-images-v-stability-ai-us", "name": "Getty Images v. Stability AI (US)", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Getty Images": [ "plaintiff" ], "Stability AI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/getty-v-stability-ai", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71112094/getty-images-us-inc-v-stability-ai-ltd" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/getty-v-stability-ai" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Hachette Book Group v. Google", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": "Google", "docket": "1:26-cv-05870", "filed": "2026-07-10", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Class action by Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, author Scott Turow and S.C.R.I.B.E. First publisher suit against Google over Gemini; mirrors their suit against Meta. Filed date approximate: chatgptiseatingtheworld posted it 2026-07-11 and Publishers Weekly 2026-07-13. Google is expected to seek transfer to Judge Lee (N.D. Cal., In re Google Generative AI Litigation). In August Cengage and Hachette withdrew a motion to intervene there.", "orgs": [ "Google" ], "outcome": "No dispositive ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-07-10 before Judge Loretta A. Preska; the live entries are an extension of time 2026-09-01 (ECF 34), an order on it 2026-09-03 (ECF 35) and a memo endorsement 2026-09-08 (ECF 36).", "plaintiff_type": "publishers", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18. Two S.D.N.Y. cases captioned Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Google LLC were opened the same day, 2026-07-10: 1:26-cv-05869, which was administratively closed on 2026-07-21 by an amended civil case administrative closing order, and 1:26-cv-05870-LAP, which is the live case before Judge Preska. The registry should carry 1:26-cv-05870. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Books supplied to Google Books and other scope-limited programmes allegedly copied to train Gemini; CMI allegedly removed to conceal it", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: The duplicate docket number is a real trap: 1:26-cv-05869 looks like the case and is closed.", "url": "https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/14/google-faces-another-ai-training-lawsuit-from-major-publishers" }, "id": "litigation:hachette-book-group-v-google", "name": "Hachette Book Group v. Google", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Google": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "techcrunch.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73603888/hachette-book-group-inc-v-google-llc", "https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/14/google-faces-another-ai-training-lawsuit-from-major-publishers", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73603836/hachette-book-group-inc-v-google-llc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/14/google-faces-another-ai-training-lawsuit-from-major-publishers" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "In re Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation", "claims": [ "BIPA (740 ILCS 14)", "California biometric/privacy claims", "New York claims", "Virginia claims" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.; 7th Cir.", "defendant": "Clearview AI", "docket": "25-1673 (7th Cir.)", "jurisdiction": "US", "name": "In re Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation", "note": "settlement_usd deliberately null: the $51.75M is a contingent equity VALUATION of a settlement that has been vacated, not cash. Stage 'settled' is no longer accurate after vacatur; true posture is remand after appeal. Enum lacks a 'remanded' value, which is a schema gap.", "orgs": [ "Clearview AI" ], "outcome": "2026-07-13: the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings (opinion by Judge Hamilton; panel Hamilton, Maldonado and Taylor). Final judgment entered the same day with costs to the objectors under Fed. R. App. P. 39(a). The appeal docket closed 2026-07-13.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "remanded", "status_note": "settlement_usd checked again 2026-09-18 and deliberately left null. The class settlement consideration was a contingent 23 percent equity stake in Clearview AI, not a cash payment, and the reported $51.75M is a valuation of that stake. The Seventh Circuit vacated approval on 2026-07-13, so no defendant is currently obliged to pay anything. A vacated, non-cash settlement yields no settlement_usd.", "training_data_at_issue": "Faceprints derived from scraped online photos used to build a face-recognition database/model", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Reaffirms an existing sourced null against the field rule that settlement_usd is money a defendant agreed to pay.", "url": "https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/clearview-ai-settlement-vacated-seventh-circuit" }, "id": "litigation:in-re-clearview-ai-consumer-privacy-litigation", "name": "In re Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Clearview AI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "recordinglaw.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/clearview-ai-settlement-vacated-seventh-circuit", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69931482/robert-weissman-v-clearview-ai-inc", "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id:29102457&type=rd&order_by=entry_date_filed+desc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/clearview-ai-settlement-vacated-seventh-circuit" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Isbell v. Suno", "claims": [ "Illinois BIPA", "right of publicity" ], "court": "D. Mass.", "defendant": "Suno", "docket": "1:26-cv-14005", "filed": "2026-08-31", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Class action by Jason Isbell, Guy Forsyth, Eduardo Calle, a Camper Van Beethoven member and others; unspecified damages. Registry already holds the filing as an event (docket and date from that event, MBW-hosted complaint). Also reported by the New York Times and Reuters.", "orgs": [ "Suno" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-08-31; Suno waived service on 2026-09-04 and its answer is due 2026-11-03 (ECF 14, 2026-09-11). Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson granted plaintiffs' counsel pro hac vice 2026-09-03 (ECF 8).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: D. Mass. 1:26-cv-14005, captioned Lowery v. Suno, Inc., filed 2026-08-31, not terminated. Plaintiffs are David Lowery, Jason Isbell, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle, so the registry name 'Isbell v. Suno' is a non-lead-plaintiff label for the same case. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Artists' names and voice likenesses allegedly embedded in Suno models and used to generate soundalike tracks", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Caption mismatch recorded so the record is not later split into two.", "url": "https://pitchfork.com/story/jason-isbell-sues-suno" }, "id": "litigation:isbell-v-suno", "name": "Isbell v. Suno", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "pitchfork.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74728439/lowery-v-suno-inc", "https://pitchfork.com/story/jason-isbell-sues-suno" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://pitchfork.com/story/jason-isbell-sues-suno" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Justice v. Suno", "claims": [ "copyright reproduction", "output infringement (derivative works)", "DMCA 1201(a)", "Tennessee Consumer Protection Act" ], "court": "D. Mass.", "defendant": "Suno", "docket": "1:25-cv-11739", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Proposed class action led by country artist Tony Justice. MBW says the surviving claims proceed to discovery. Filed date not read, left null. Also chatgptiseatingtheworld (2026-08-21).", "orgs": [ "Suno" ], "outcome": "2026-08-20: Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV denied Suno's motion to dismiss the output-infringement and DMCA 1201(a) YouTube rolling-cipher claims; only the Tennessee consumer claim was dismissed.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: D. Mass. 1:25-cv-11739, Justice v. Suno, Inc., filed 2025-06-14, not terminated. The 2026-08-20 partial denial of Suno's motion to dismiss already in the record stands; no settlement on the docket, so settlement_usd stays null.", "training_data_at_issue": "Independent artists' songs allegedly stream-ripped from YouTube to train Suno", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket only; the outcome was already correct.", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-indie-artists-proposed-class-action-against-suno-clearing-ai-output-and-stream-ripping-claims-for-discovery" }, "id": "litigation:justice-v-suno", "name": "Justice v. Suno", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "musicbusinessworldwide.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70542478/justice-v-suno-inc", "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-indie-artists-proposed-class-action-against-suno-clearing-ai-output-and-stream-ripping-claims-for-discovery" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-indie-artists-proposed-class-action-against-suno-clearing-ai-output-and-stream-ripping-claims-for-discovery" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Kadrey v. Meta", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202", "copyright infringement (distribution via torrenting)" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Meta", "docket": "3:23-cv-03417", "jurisdiction": "US", "name": "Kadrey v. Meta", "note": "Stage reflects the last merits ruling; the status of the surviving distribution claim in 2026 was not confirmed. Perkins Coie headline indicates the DMCA question also went Meta's way, but its page 404'd so the DMCA outcome is not recorded as fact. Related docket 3:24-cv-06893 per BakerHostetler tracker.", "orgs": [ "Meta" ], "outcome": "2025-06-25 (Judge Chhabria): summary judgment for Meta on the claim that training Llama on plaintiffs' books infringed (fair use on this record, because plaintiffs failed to prove market dilution). Ruling expressly limited to the 13 named authors and does not hold that training on copyrighted books is lawful generally. Distribution (torrent seeding) claim was allowed to proceed.", "plaintiff_type": "authors", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-03417, filed 2023-07-07, Judge Vince Chhabria. Expert report deadlines extended 2026-09-16 (ECF 839), opening reports due 2026-10-02. In expert discovery.", "training_data_at_issue": "Books from shadow libraries including LibGen and Anna's Archive", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-03417 confirmed; expert discovery schedule extended.", "url": "https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/29109e7a/two-us-decisions-find-that-reproducing-works-to-train" }, "id": "litigation:kadrey-v-meta", "name": "Kadrey v. Meta", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Meta": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "nortonrosefulbright.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.836.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67569326/kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc", "https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/29109e7a/two-us-decisions-find-that-reproducing-works-to-train" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 3, "independent_hosts": 3, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/29109e7a/two-us-decisions-find-that-reproducing-works-to-train" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Lacour v. Apple Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Apple Inc.", "docket": "1:26-cv-05536", "filed": "2026-05-13", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Yohance Lacour, Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Victoria Nassif (Alison Flowers is not a plaintiff in this case). All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assi", "orgs": [ "Apple Inc." ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss being briefed, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. On 2026-09-09 Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman struck without prejudice Apple's motion to extend its reply page limit and deadline as premature (ECF 35); a further extension of time to respond was sought 2026-09-16 (ECF 37) and ruled on 2026-09-17 (ECF 39).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05536, filed 2026-05-13, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, not terminated. Same seven journalist plaintiffs as the sibling suits. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrators and used to build Apple's commercial voice synthesis technology, including Personal Voice, Siri speech generation and audiobook digital narration", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed and dated.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:lacour-v-apple-inc", "name": "Lacour v. Apple Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Apple Inc.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73335974/lacour-v-apple-inc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568.1.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500568.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Lehrman v. Lovo", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "Lanham Act false association/advertising", "NY Civil Rights Law 50-51", "NY GBL 349-350", "breach of contract", "fraud", "unjust enrichment", "conversion" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": "Lovo", "docket": "1:24-cv-03770", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Not BIPA. Illustrates classic split outcome: state publicity and contract survive, federal IP theories mostly fail. Post-2025 status not verified.", "orgs": [ "Lovo" ], "outcome": "2026-05-28: stayed in light of Lovo, Inc.'s bankruptcy filing. A suggestion of bankruptcy was docketed 2026-05-27 (ECF 65) and the court stayed the action the next day, adjourning all conferences and deadlines (ECF 66). Lovo, Inc. is debtor in Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 26-11249, filed 2026-05-27.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "stayed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:24-cv-03770, Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., filed 2024-05-16, not terminated. The 2026-05-28 bankruptcy stay already in the record stands. No settlement: the defendant is in Chapter 11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 26-11249), so any recovery would come through the bankruptcy estate and nothing has been agreed.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voice recordings of two voice actors commissioned via Fiverr, used to train the Genny voice generator and sold as clones", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd with the reason that matters: the defendant is in bankruptcy.", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/lehrman-v-lovo-inc" }, "id": "litigation:lehrman-v-lovo", "name": "Lehrman v. Lovo", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "Lovo": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "loeb.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68535780/lehrman-v-lovo-inc", "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/lehrman-v-lovo-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/lehrman-v-lovo-inc" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Marin v. Alphabet, Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": [ "Alphabet Inc.", "Google LLC" ], "docket": "1:26-cv-05436", "filed": "2026-05-11", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: April M. Perry. A com", "orgs": [ "Alphabet Inc.", "Google LLC" ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss fully briefed, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Alphabet and Google moved to dismiss (ECF 27) and filed a Rule 5.1 notice of constitutional challenge on 2026-08-03 (ECF 30); the seven plaintiffs opposed on 2026-08-31 (ECF 31). On 2026-07-28 Judge April M. Perry vacated the motion hearing because a briefing schedule was already set (ECF 29).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05436, Marin v. Alphabet, Inc., filed 2026-05-11, Judge April M. Perry, not terminated. The Rule 5.1 notice means a state statute's constitutionality is in play, which none of the sibling suits shows. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of broadcast journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrators and used to train the foundational voice models behind Gemini Live, NotebookLM Audio Overviews, YouTube auto-dubbing, Google Cloud Text-to-Speech and Google Assistant", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed and dated; the constitutional challenge is the distinguishing fact.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:marin-v-alphabet-inc", "name": "Marin v. Alphabet, Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Alphabet Inc.": [ "defendant" ], "Google LLC": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73326634/marin-v-alphabet-inc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459.1.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500459.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Marin v. Meta Platforms, Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Meta Platforms Inc.", "docket": "1:26-cv-05438", "filed": "2026-05-12", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: Steven C. Seeger. A c", "orgs": [ "Meta Platforms Inc." ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss pending, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Meta moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF 20); the seven plaintiffs filed their opposition with six exhibits on 2026-09-04 (ECF 23) before Judge Steven C. Seeger.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05438, filed 2026-05-11, Judge Steven C. Seeger, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters, narrators and voice performers and used to train the audio models behind Voicebox, Audiobox, Massively Multilingual Speech and voice features across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Threads, Meta AI, AI Studio, Reels AI voice translation and Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed and dated.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:marin-v-meta-platforms-inc", "name": "Marin v. Meta Platforms, Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Meta Platforms Inc.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73326668/marin-v-meta-platforms-inc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461.1.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500461.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Nassif v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": [ "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.", "Samsung Electronics America Inc." ], "docket": "1:26-cv-05567", "filed": "2026-05-13", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: Jeremy C. Daniel. A c", "orgs": [ "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.", "Samsung Electronics America Inc." ], "outcome": "Motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pending, no ruling as of 2026-09-18. Two such motions were docketed 2026-09-14 (ECF 20 and ECF 23), following an order on a miscellaneous-relief motion 2026-09-09 (ECF 19), before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel.", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05567, Nassif v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., filed 2026-05-13, Judge Jeremy C. Daniel, not terminated. The two Samsung entities each moved separately, which fits the registry's two named defendants. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters, narrators and voice actors and used to train Samsung's voice AI, including Galaxy AI features, Bixby, Live Translate and Interpreter, and Samsung Gauss", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage 'motion to dismiss' confirmed; the motions are only four days old as of retrieval.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609.1.0_1.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:nassif-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd", "name": "Nassif v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Samsung Electronics America Inc.": [ "defendant" ], "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609.1.0_1.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73339261/nassif-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500609.1.0_1.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "contributory copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202", "trademark dilution", "unfair competition" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft" ], "docket": "1:23-cv-11195", "filed": "2023-12-27", "jurisdiction": "US", "name": "New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "note": "Now coordinated in MDL 1:25-md-03143 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Stein). Complaint pleads 'billions of dollars' in statutory and actual damages with no specific figure, so damages_sought_usd is null. Summary judgment briefing reported to conclude 2026-04-02; no decision found; no trial date set. Sources disagree on MTD date (March vs April 2025) because a short order preceded the full opinion.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft", "New York Times" ], "outcome": "Motion to dismiss largely denied (bottom-line order March 2025, opinion 2025-04-04): direct and contributory infringement claims survived; DMCA 1202 and unfair competition claims dismissed with leave to amend. 2026-01-05: Judge Stein affirmed order compelling production of 20 million de-identified ChatGPT logs. No merits ruling on fair use.", "plaintiff": "New York Times", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "summary judgment", "status_note": "Settlement checked 2026-09-18: none. The case is running inside MDL 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation) before Judge Sidney H. Stein; no settlement, consent judgment or dismissal is on the docket. The complaint pleads statutory and actual damages without a total, so damages_sought_usd also stays null rather than being computed.", "training_data_at_issue": "Millions of NYT articles allegedly used to train GPT models; also output regurgitation", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Sourced null for settlement_usd: checked and absent, with the reason it is absent.", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/new-york-times-v-openai" }, "id": "litigation:new-york-times-v-microsoft-and-openai", "name": "New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft": [ "defendant" ], "New York Times": [ "plaintiff" ], "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "ailawsuittracker.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/the-new-york-times-company-v-microsoft-corporation", "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/new-york-times-v-openai", "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id:69879510&type=rd&order_by=entry_date_filed+desc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 3, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://ailawsuittracker.com/cases/new-york-times-v-openai" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Pandiscia v. Twitch Interactive", "claims": [ "breach of implied contract", "breach of express contract", "unjust enrichment", "unfair business practices" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": [ "Twitch Interactive", "Amazon.com" ], "docket": "3:26-cv-08721", "filed": "2026-08-20", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Class action by Connecticut streamer Warren Pandiscia; seeks injunction, damages, restitution and disgorgement. Contract, not copyright, theory. Registry holds the filing as an event and the Twitch setting as context; also reported by BBC, Kotaku and Tubefilter.", "orgs": [ "Twitch Interactive", "Amazon.com" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-08-20 before Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros; summons returned executed, a pro hac vice application and a magistrate-judge consent form were all docketed 2026-09-17 (ECF 17-19).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-08721, Pandiscia v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., filed 2026-08-20, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Twitch creators' streams and videos allegedly harvested under a default-on setting to train Amazon generative AI", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket and court were both null.", "url": "https://www.courthousenews.com/online-streamers-sue-twitch-amazon-over-generative-ai-training" }, "id": "litigation:pandiscia-v-twitch-interactive", "name": "Pandiscia v. Twitch Interactive", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Amazon.com": [ "defendant" ], "Twitch Interactive": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courthousenews.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courthousenews.com/online-streamers-sue-twitch-amazon-over-generative-ai-training", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74680773/pandiscia-v-twitch-interactive-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.courthousenews.com/online-streamers-sue-twitch-amazon-over-generative-ai-training" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Raw Story v. OpenAI", "claims": [ "DMCA 1202(b)" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.", "defendant": "OpenAI", "docket": "25-1756 (2d Cir.)", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Appeal number from chatgptiseatingtheworld.com. District docket not read. Bloomberg Law reported Raw Story could not use MDL consolidation to revive claims.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "November 2024 (Judge McMahon): dismissed for lack of Article III standing (no concrete injury from CMI removal). Second Circuit oral argument 2026-03-18; no appellate decision found.", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "on appeal", "status_note": "Appeal confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-17: 2d Cir. 25-1756, docketed 2025-07-18 and captioned In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, still open with no judgment. The district case, S.D.N.Y. 1:24-cv-01514 (Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI Inc.), was filed 2024-02-28 and terminated 2025-06-18.", "training_data_at_issue": "Raw Story and AlterNet articles allegedly stripped of CMI before ChatGPT training", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-17 from courtlistener.com: 2d Cir. 25-1756 confirmed open; the S.D.N.Y. case closed 2025-06-18.", "url": "https://copyrightlately.com/raw-story-copyright-lawsuit-standing" }, "id": "litigation:raw-story-v-openai", "name": "Raw Story v. OpenAI", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-17", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "copyrightlately.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70880280/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringement-litigation", "https://copyrightlately.com/raw-story-copyright-lawsuit-standing" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 1, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://copyrightlately.com/raw-story-copyright-lawsuit-standing" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Reddit v. Perplexity AI, SerpApi, Oxylabs and AWMProxy", "claims": [ "DMCA 1201 anti-circumvention", "copyright infringement" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "Perplexity AI", "SerpApi", "Oxylabs", "AWMProxy" ], "docket": "1:25-cv-08736", "filed": "2025-10", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Not previously in the registry. Amended complaint (February 2026) alleges Perplexity itself used SerpApi tools. Ruling also reported by Reuters (2026-07-31) and Press Gazette. Days earlier a different judge dismissed Google's own DMCA suit against SerpApi. Stage kept at 'motion to dismiss' with the decision in outcome because the post-ruling schedule was not read.", "orgs": [ "Perplexity AI", "SerpApi", "Oxylabs", "AWMProxy", "Reddit" ], "outcome": "2026-07-31: Judge Paul Engelmayer largely denied Perplexity's and SerpApi's motions to dismiss; Reddit plausibly pleaded that Perplexity used SerpApi tools to bypass Google's SearchGuard and obtain Reddit posts. Some claims dismissed; privacy-based injury theory allowed.", "plaintiff": "Reddit", "plaintiff_type": "company", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-08736, captioned Reddit, Inc. v. SerpApi LLC, filed 2025-10-22, not terminated. The registry name lists all four defendants; the court's caption names SerpApi first. The 2026-07-31 partial denial of the motions to dismiss already in the record stands. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Reddit posts and comments scraped from Google search results at industrial scale for Perplexity's answer engine", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket only; caption difference noted so the record is not duplicated.", "url": "https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416950/reddit-can-proceed-with-scraping-claims-against-pe.html" }, "id": "litigation:reddit-v-perplexity-ai-serpapi-oxylabs-and-awmproxy", "name": "Reddit v. Perplexity AI, SerpApi, Oxylabs and AWMProxy", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "month", "_org_roles": { "AWMProxy": [ "defendant" ], "Oxylabs": [ "defendant" ], "Perplexity AI": [ "defendant" ], "Reddit": [ "plaintiff" ], "SerpApi": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "mediapost.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71720563/reddit-inc-v-serpapi-llc", "https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416950/reddit-can-proceed-with-scraping-claims-against-pe.html" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416950/reddit-can-proceed-with-scraping-claims-against-pe.html" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Richner Communications v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "claims": [ "direct copyright infringement", "vicarious copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "Microsoft", "OpenAI" ], "docket": "1:26-cv-05320", "filed": "2026-06-24", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Led by Richner Communications; plaintiffs include AIM Media Management subsidiaries, CherryRoad Media, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Rust Publishing, Sentinel Media, Shaw Family Holdings and Straus Newspapers. Seeks statutory and actual damages and restitution. chatgptiseatingtheworld counts it as the 26th suit against OpenAI and expects a stay pending the MDL summary judgment. Headlines on 2026-09-16 report the coalition case passing 550 publications; not read in full.", "orgs": [ "Microsoft", "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "No ruling of its own as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-06-24 and running on the MDL 3143 track (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, S.D.N.Y. 1:25-md-03143); the recent entries are MDL-wide orders entered on this docket (ECF 62, 2026-09-11) and appearances (ECF 63-64, 2026-09-14).", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-05320, Richner Communications, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, filed 2026-06-24, not terminated; a matching J.P.M.L. entry exists for the transfer. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Hundreds of thousands of articles from 35 local and regional publishers (almost 400 newspaper brands) allegedly scraped to train ChatGPT and Copilot", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null. The MDL membership is the reason this case has no separate rulings.", "url": "https://courthousenews.com/newspapers-sue-openai-microsoft-for-mass-copyright-infringement" }, "id": "litigation:richner-communications-v-microsoft-and-openai", "name": "Richner Communications v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft": [ "defendant" ], "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courthousenews.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73528019/richner-communications-inc-v-microsoft-corporation", "https://courthousenews.com/newspapers-sue-openai-microsoft-for-mass-copyright-infringement" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://courthousenews.com/newspapers-sue-openai-microsoft-for-mass-copyright-infringement" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Rogers v. Amazon.com, Inc.", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "Amazon.com Inc.", "docket": "1:26-cv-05497", "filed": "2026-05-12", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Philip Rogers, Carol Marin, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif (Alison Flowers is not a plaintiff in this case). All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assi", "orgs": [ "Amazon.com Inc." ], "outcome": "No merits ruling as of 2026-09-18. On 2026-08-25 Judge Jorge Luis Alonso referred the case to Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz for discovery supervision and a settlement conference (ECF 28); on 2026-08-31 Judge Jantz noted that Amazon had asked for a stay in the joint initial status report (ECF 29), and a stay entry was docketed 2026-09-15 (ECF 30).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05497, Rogers v. Amazon.Com, Inc., filed 2026-05-12, Judge Jorge Luis Alonso, not terminated. The registry stage 'motion to dismiss' does not match the docket: like Rogers v. NVIDIA, this case is on a discovery-supervision and settlement referral, and a stay entry was docketed 2026-09-15. A settlement referral is not a settlement and no amount exists, so settlement_usd stays null.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrators and used to train the Foundational Voice Models behind Amazon Polly, Amazon Nova Sonic, Alexa+, Audible AI narration and ACX narrator voice replicas, distributed across Alexa devices and the AWS, Audible and Kindle ecosystems", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage flag. The free docket view showed the stay entry's existence but not its terms, so the outcome says only that.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:rogers-v-amazon-com-inc", "name": "Rogers v. Amazon.com, Inc.", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Amazon.com Inc.": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73332952/rogers-v-amazoncom-inc", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528.1.0.pdf" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500528.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Rogers v. NVIDIA Corporation", "claims": [ "BIPA 15(b) (740 ILCS 14/15(b))", "BIPA 15(a) (740 ILCS 14/15(a))", "BIPA 15(c) (740 ILCS 14/15(c))", "BIPA 15(d) (740 ILCS 14/15(d))", "BIPA 15(e) (740 ILCS 14/15(e))", "Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)", "Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (injunctive relief only)", "Unjust enrichment (Illinois common law)" ], "court": "N.D. Ill.", "defendant": "NVIDIA Corporation", "docket": "1:26-cv-05478", "filed": "2026-05-12", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Read the complaint PDF from CourtListener RECAP; docket number and filing date taken from the ECF header stamp on page 1 of the complaint. Named plaintiffs: Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, Victoria Nassif. All nine suits are brought by Loevy & Loevy for the same pool of seven Illinois voice professionals. Assigned judge: Thomas M. Durkin. A c", "orgs": [ "NVIDIA Corporation" ], "outcome": "No merits ruling as of 2026-09-18. On 2026-09-08 Judge Thomas M. Durkin referred the case to Magistrate Judge Albert Berry III for discovery supervision AND settlement under Local Rule 72.1 (ECF 36); Judge Berry set a video status conference for 2026-09-30 (ECF 37). A joint initial status report was filed 2026-09-04 (ECF 35).", "plaintiff_type": "individuals", "stage": "motion to dismiss", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-05478, Rogers v. Nvidia Corporation, filed 2026-05-12, Judge Thomas M. Durkin, not terminated. The registry stage 'motion to dismiss' does not match what the docket shows: this case has moved to supervised discovery and a settlement referral, unlike its eight sibling suits. A referral for settlement is not a settlement, and nothing has been agreed, so settlement_usd stays null.", "training_data_at_issue": "Voiceprints alleged to have been extracted from recordings of journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrators and used to train Magpie TTS Multilingual, Magpie TTS Zeroshot, Magpie TTS Flow, FUGATTO, PersonaPlex, Nemotron 3 VoiceChat and the Canary and Parakeet speech models, distributed via NVIDIA AI Enterprise and the NVIDIA API", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Stage flag, not a stage change: a pending motion to dismiss could coexist with the referral, and the free docket view did not show one either way.", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501.1.0.pdf" }, "id": "litigation:rogers-v-nvidia-corporation", "name": "Rogers v. NVIDIA Corporation", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "NVIDIA Corporation": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "storage.courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501.1.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73330566/rogers-v-nvidia-corporation" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501/gov.uscourts.ilnd.500501.1.0.pdf" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Round Hill Music v. Anthropic", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "DMCA" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "Anthropic", "docket": "5:26-cv-08505", "filed": "2026-08-17", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Seeks statutory damages up to $150,000 per work; Round Hill says each case could approach or exceed $1B, which is a plaintiff estimate, not a pleaded sum, so damages_sought_usd is null. Jury trial demanded; says it will not settle. Judge Lee related it to the Concord Music v. Anthropic cluster on 2026-09-02. Also reported by Reuters (2026-08-17) and chatgptiseatingtheworld (12th suit v. Anthropic).", "orgs": [ "Anthropic" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-08-17 before Judge Charles R. Breyer; the docket through 2026-09-09 shows a clerk's notice setting a hearing (2026-09-03) and pro hac vice filings and orders (ECF 37-38).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-08505, Round Hill Music LP v. Anthropic PBC, filed 2026-08-17, Judge Charles R. Breyer, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Musical compositions (Round Hill controls 14,364 compositions and 16,873 recordings) allegedly used to train Claude", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null.", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/round-hill-sues-suno-and-anthropic-for-up-to-1bn-apiece-it-isnt-looking-to-settle" }, "id": "litigation:round-hill-music-v-anthropic", "name": "Round Hill Music v. Anthropic", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Anthropic": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "musicbusinessworldwide.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/round-hill-sues-suno-and-anthropic-for-up-to-1bn-apiece-it-isnt-looking-to-settle", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74658311/round-hill-music-lp-v-anthropic-pbc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/round-hill-sues-suno-and-anthropic-for-up-to-1bn-apiece-it-isnt-looking-to-settle" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Round Hill Music v. Suno", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "contributory infringement", "DMCA 1201", "DMCA 1202" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": [ "Suno", "Bright Data" ], "docket": "5:26-cv-08507", "filed": "2026-08-17", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Filed the same day as the Anthropic suit, same counsel (Richard Busch, Adams and Reese, Skaggs Faucette), before Judge Rita Lin. Bright Data as co-defendant per chatgptiseatingtheworld's Gerencia 360 post; not confirmed from the complaint. Up to $150,000 per work sought; MBW reports Round Hill's view that the total could approach $1B (plaintiff estimate).", "orgs": [ "Suno", "Bright Data" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-08-17 before Judge Rita F. Lin; the latest entries are pro hac vice filings (ECF 28, 2026-09-08) and a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure with an appearance (ECF 31, 2026-09-17).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-08507, Round Hill Music LP v. Suno, Inc., filed 2026-08-17, Judge Rita F. Lin, not terminated. The court's caption names Suno only; the registry also lists Bright Data as a defendant, which the caption does not confirm. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Round Hill recordings and compositions allegedly scraped (with data vendor Bright Data) to train Suno", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null; the Bright Data discrepancy repeats the one in Gerencia 360.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/17/round-hill-music-sues-suno-as-well-total-135-suits-v-ai-cos" }, "id": "litigation:round-hill-music-v-suno", "name": "Round Hill Music v. Suno", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Bright Data": [ "defendant" ], "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/17/round-hill-music-sues-suno-as-well-total-135-suits-v-ai-cos", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74658569/round-hill-music-lp-v-suno-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/08/17/round-hill-music-sues-suno-as-well-total-135-suits-v-ai-cos" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "S.A. Jamendo v. NVIDIA", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "breach of licence terms" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "defendant": "NVIDIA", "docket": "5:26-cv-06206", "filed": "2026-06-22", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Parallel Belgian case in Ghent, where a judge in June 2026 rejected Nvidia Belgium's jurisdiction objection; Nvidia disputes Jamendo's invoice. Nvidia's own publications name MTG-Jamendo as a training dataset. Docket from ailawsuittracker; also Reuters (2026-06-23). Links to the dataset type: a research-only licence at issue.", "orgs": [ "NVIDIA" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-06-22 before Judge Noel Wise; on 2026-08-11 the court granted as modified a stipulation changing case deadlines (ECF 26) and the clerk reset the initial case management conference from 2026-10-06 to 2027-01-12, with the case management statement due 2026-12-23 (ECF 27).", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-06206-NW, S.A. Jamendo v. Nvidia Corporation, filed 2026-06-22, Judge Noel Wise, not terminated. A companion Jamendo action against Nvidia, N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-06209, was filed the same day. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "MTG-Jamendo dataset (55,000 full tracks, licensed for non-commercial research only) allegedly used to train Fugatto and Audio Flamingo", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: The 2027 conference date is the best available evidence that nothing will be decided soon; it is also a second Jamendo docket the registry does not carry.", "url": "https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/06/23/jamendo-nvidia-lawsuit" }, "id": "litigation:s-a-jamendo-v-nvidia", "name": "S.A. Jamendo v. NVIDIA", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "NVIDIA": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "digitalmusicnews.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73517096/sa-jamendo-v-nvidia-corporation", "https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/06/23/jamendo-nvidia-lawsuit" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/06/23/jamendo-nvidia-lawsuit" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "S.A. Jamendo v. Suno", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "breach of contract", "unjust enrichment", "Mass. unfair and deceptive practices" ], "court": "D. Mass.", "defendant": "Suno", "docket": "1:26-cv-12966", "filed": "2026-06-29", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Filed days after Jamendo sued Nvidia. Without-prejudice dismissal leaves refiling open. Filing reported by MBW 2026-06-30 and Digital Music News.", "orgs": [ "Suno" ], "outcome": "2026-08-13: dismissed on S.A. Jamendo's own notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF 17). The docket was terminated the same day. No ruling on the merits and no disclosed settlement.", "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "dismissed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: D. Mass. 1:26-cv-12966, S.A. Jamendo v. Suno Inc., filed 2026-06-29, terminated 2026-08-13, which matches the voluntary dismissal already in the record. No settlement was disclosed and none appears on the docket, so settlement_usd stays null; a voluntary dismissal is not evidence of a payment.", "training_data_at_issue": "Jamendo catalogue and associated data allegedly used to develop Suno's platform", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null. The termination date on the docket corroborates the outcome already recorded.", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/jamendo-drops-its-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-against-suno-six-weeks-after-filing-it" }, "id": "litigation:s-a-jamendo-v-suno", "name": "S.A. Jamendo v. Suno", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "musicbusinessworldwide.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73547746/sa-jamendo-v-suno-inc", "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/jamendo-drops-its-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-against-suno-six-weeks-after-filing-it" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/jamendo-drops-its-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-against-suno-six-weeks-after-filing-it" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Seattle Times and Newsday v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "DMCA 1202" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y.", "defendant": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft" ], "docket": "1:26-cv-07644", "filed": "2026-09-04", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Complaint: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.672142/gov.uscourts.nysd.672142.1.0.pdf. Seeks damages and destruction of training datasets and models built with plaintiffs' content. Filed the day summary-judgment briefing began in the OpenAI MDL (1:25-md-03143); likely to be coordinated there. Reported independently by Press Gazette (2026-09-07) and Reuters.", "orgs": [ "OpenAI", "Microsoft" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-09-04; summons issued 2026-09-10 (ECF 15); an MDL 3143 order to show cause was entered on this docket 2026-09-15 (ECF 16), the same mechanism that produced a stay in Sullivan v. OpenAI.", "plaintiff_type": "news", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-07644, captioned The Seattle Times Company v. OpenAI Inc., filed 2026-09-04, assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff, not terminated. Newsday does not appear in the CourtListener caption, so whether it is a co-plaintiff here or filed separately is not established. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Hundreds of thousands of Seattle Times and Newsday articles, including paywalled ones, allegedly scraped to train and ground GPT and Copilot models", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null. The Newsday question is left open rather than asserted.", "url": "https://www.geekwire.com/2026/seattle-times-sues-microsoft-and-openai-alleging-they-trained-their-ai-on-its-journalism" }, "id": "litigation:seattle-times-and-newsday-v-microsoft-and-openai", "name": "Seattle Times and Newsday v. Microsoft and OpenAI", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Microsoft": [ "defendant" ], "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com", "geekwire.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74754553/the-seattle-times-company-v-openai-inc", "https://www.geekwire.com/2026/seattle-times-sues-microsoft-and-openai-alleging-they-trained-their-ai-on-its-journalism" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.833, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.geekwire.com/2026/seattle-times-sues-microsoft-and-openai-alleging-they-trained-their-ai-on-its-journalism" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Shakespeare v. Anthropic", "claims": [ "copyright infringement", "contributory infringement" ], "court": "N.D. Cal.", "damages_sought_usd": { "availability": "listed", "basis": null, "currency": "USD", "kind": "cap", "max": 71400000, "min": null, "note": null, "raw": "up to $71.4M statutory, if willfulness is proven (tracker's calculation of the plaintiffs' maximum)" }, "defendant": [ "Anthropic", "Dario Amodei", "Benjamin Mann" ], "docket": "5:26-cv-05931", "filed": "2026-06-17", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "100 authors who opted out of the Bartz settlement. Related to Cambronne (Carreyrou) v. Anthropic before Judge Pitts, who now presides over post-Bartz book suits. First amended complaint (2026-08-17) added plaintiffs and a contributory claim against Amodei and Mann. Press reports of '$75M' differ from the tracker's $71.4M.", "orgs": [ "Anthropic", "Dario Amodei", "Benjamin Mann" ], "outcome": "No ruling as of 2026-09-18. Filed 2026-06-17 before Judge P. Casey Pitts; an amended complaint is on file (ECF 37) and the parties were fighting over Anthropic's motion to extend the time to answer it, which the roughly fifty named plaintiffs opposed on 2026-09-01 (ECF 47).", "plaintiff_type": "authors", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-05931-PCP, Shakespeare v. Anthropic PBC, filed 2026-06-17, Judge P. Casey Pitts, not terminated. ailawsuittracker gives the number as 3:26-cv-05931-JST, which does not match the court's own docket; prefer 5:26-cv-05931-PCP. The 'up to $71.4M' already in damages_sought_usd is a tracker's arithmetic on a statutory maximum, not a figure any defendant has agreed to pay, and no settlement exists.", "training_data_at_issue": "Books torrented from shadow libraries to build Anthropic's central library, the use Bartz held was not fair use", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Docket was null and the only third-party number available was wrong on both the division prefix and the judge.", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/06/17/shakespeare-sues-anthropic-dario-amodei-for-copyright-infringement-new-suit-filed-by-100-authors" }, "id": "litigation:shakespeare-v-anthropic", "name": "Shakespeare v. Anthropic", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Anthropic": [ "defendant" ], "Benjamin Mann": [ "defendant" ], "Dario Amodei": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "chatgptiseatingtheworld.com", "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/06/17/shakespeare-sues-anthropic-dario-amodei-for-copyright-infringement-new-suit-filed-by-100-authors", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73494355/shakespeare-v-anthropic-pbc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.917, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "A", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/06/17/shakespeare-sues-anthropic-dario-amodei-for-copyright-infringement-new-suit-filed-by-100-authors" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "Silverman v. OpenAI", "claims": [ "copyright infringement" ], "court": "S.D.N.Y. (transferred from N.D. Cal.)", "defendant": "OpenAI", "docket": "3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal.); 1:25-cv-03483 (S.D.N.Y.)", "jurisdiction": "US", "note": "Transferred into MDL No. 3143 by order of 2025-04-21. Expert discovery reported due 2026-07-17. Earlier N.D. Cal. pleading-stage rulings not verified in this pass, so outcome left null rather than reconstructed from memory. URL surfaced via search; CourtListener blocked direct fetch (403).", "orgs": [ "OpenAI" ], "outcome": "No ruling of its own as of 2026-09-18. The case sits inside MDL 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation) before Judge Sidney H. Stein; the most recent entries on the S.D.N.Y. docket are an MDL-wide order 2026-09-11 (ECF 319) and appearances 2026-09-14 (ECF 320-321).", "plaintiff_type": "authors", "stage": "discovery", "status_note": "Docket confirmed on CourtListener 2026-09-18: S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-03483, Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., filed 2025-04-27 on transfer from N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-03416, Judge Sidney H. Stein, not terminated. No settlement on the docket.", "training_data_at_issue": "Books allegedly used to train ChatGPT models", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from courtlistener.com: Outcome was empty. The honest answer is that the MDL, not this docket, is where anything will be decided.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69950496/silverman-v-openai-inc" }, "id": "litigation:silverman-v-openai", "name": "Silverman v. OpenAI", "notes": { "_org_roles": { "OpenAI": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-16", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "courtlistener.com" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69950496/silverman-v-openai-inc" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.75, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": false, "flags": [ "single-source" ], "grade": "B", "hosts": 1, "independent_hosts": 1, "sources": 1, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69950496/silverman-v-openai-inc" }, { "fields": { "case_name": "SOCAN v. Suno", "claims": [ "copyright infringement (performing rights)" ], "court": "Federal Court of Canada", "defendant": "Suno", "filed": "2026-09-02", "jurisdiction": "CA", "note": "First Canadian collecting-society suit against an AI music generator. Also covered by MBW, Billboard Canada and chatgptiseatingtheworld (statement of claim issued 2026-09-02).", "orgs": [ "Suno" ], "plaintiff_type": "music", "stage": "filed", "status_note": "Docket not machine-fetchable and not on CourtListener or RECAP. This is a Canadian action and the court file is held by the Federal Court of Canada registry (fct-cf.gc.ca); its 'Court Files' search is a captcha-gated web form with no free API, and the Federal Court's decisions database (decisia.lexum.com/fct-cf) publishes only reasons, not the recorded entries, so no court file number could be read from a free source on 2026-09-18. No ruling found and no settlement.", "training_data_at_issue": "Suno allegedly trained on virtually all music files accessible online; 150 sample outputs alleged identical or similar to SOCAN repertoire (e.g. Both Sides Now, Sk8er Boi)", "update_note": "updated 2026-09-18 from fct-cf.gc.ca: Recorded as a sourced 'not fetchable' with the registry that holds it, rather than a bare null.", "url": "https://www.cbc.ca/music/socan-suno-ai-lawsuit-9.7328609" }, "id": "litigation:socan-v-suno", "name": "SOCAN v. Suno", "notes": { "_filed_precision": "day", "_org_roles": { "Suno": [ "defendant" ] } }, "provenance": { "consent_license": "third-party-derived", "first_seen": "2026-09-17", "last_seen": "2026-09-18", "method": "refinery-update", "source_hosts": [ "cbc.ca", "fct-cf.gc.ca" ], "source_urls": [ "https://www.cbc.ca/music/socan-suno-ai-lawsuit-9.7328609", "https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files" ] }, "quality": { "age_days": 0, "completeness": 0.667, "confidence": "high", "corroborated": true, "flags": [], "grade": "B", "hosts": 2, "independent_hosts": 2, "sources": 2, "stale": false, "stale_after_days": 30 }, "type": "litigation", "url": "https://www.cbc.ca/music/socan-suno-ai-lawsuit-9.7328609" } ], "_meta": { "source": "Blomega Data Refinery", "url": "https://data.blomega.com", "publisher": "Blomega", "publisher_url": "https://blomegalab.com", "wikidata": "Q141048865", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "license_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "cite_as": "Blomega Data Refinery (https://data.blomega.com), CC BY 4.0. Cite the registry and the record id.", "attribution_required": true } }