Chat GPT Is Eating the World

We compiled a running list of the lawsuits filed against AI companies, including OpenAI. This list was updated on Sept. 14, 2025 and in the process of being updated on Dec. 23, 2025. N.B. We have made corrections to the totals below. Each case filed is counted even if later consolidated or deemed a related case to another case.

UPDATE IN PROGRESS on Dec. 23, 2025: The total number of copyright lawsuits is now 72. We are in the process of adding the following cases to our list below: (72) Ted Entertainment v. Meta; (71) Ted Entertainment v. Bytedance; (70) Carreyrou v. Anthropic, (69) Google v. SerpApi, (68) Lyon v. Adobe, (67) Attack the Sound LLC v. Kunlun Tech Co., (66) Barkley Associates v. Quizlet. We counted Google v. SerpApi, a data scraping / anti-circumvention case, because it is similar to Reddit v. SerpApi; the latter includes allegations related to Perplexity’s answer engine, although not a copyright infringement claim.

Our list below does not yet include the information for these 7 cases. They will be added soon.

UPDATED on Dec. 5, 2025: We added the newly filed New York Times v. Perplexity AI  and Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., suit in the Southern District of New York. As of Dec. 5, 2025, 65 copyrights suits have been filed against AI companies.

UPDATE IN PROGRESS: As of Dec. 3, 2025, 63 copyright lawuits have been filed against AI companies. The Master List on this page is in the process of being updated from the 51 cases on Sept. 16. The 12 lawsuits being added are:

1. U.S. News & World Report, L.P. v. OpenAI, Inc. (SDNY)
2. Ted Entertainment Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. (N.D. Cal.)
3. California Newspaper Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. (SDNY)
4. James v. Snowflake Inc. (Mont.)
5. Entrepreneur Media v. Meta (N.D. Cal.)
6. Woulard v. Suno (N.D. Ill.)
7. Woulard v. Uncharted Labs (N.D. Ill.)
8. Alexander v. Apple (N.D. Cal.)
9. Reddit v. SerpAPI, Perplexity (SDNY)
10. Martinez-Conde v. Apple (N.D. Cal.)
11. Alexander v. Salesforce (N.D. Cal.)
12. Tanzer v. Salesforce (N.D. Cal.)

UPDATE: As of Sept. 16, 2025, 51 copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in U.S. New suit: Disney v. MiniMax. There are 24 copyright lawsuits outside the U.S. So the world total = 75 copyrights suits.

UPDATE: As of Sept. 14, 2025, 50 copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in the U.S. New lawsuits since last update: Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Perplexity AI, Hendrix v. Apple, and Warner Brothers v. Midjourney. With 3 cases voluntarily dismissed (Brave Software v. Dow Jones, Millette v. Google, Millette v. NVIDIA), that leaves 47 lawsuits pending, 3 of which are on appeal (Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, Doe 1 v. Github, and Raw Story Media v. OpenAI). There was also an antitrust lawsuit (without copyright claims) filed in Penske Media v. Google related to Google’s AI Mode.

UPDATE: As of August 12, 2025, 47 copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in the U.S. Recent addition of Strike 3 Holdings v. Meta Platforms. With 3 cases voluntarily dismissed, that leaves 44 lawsuits pending.

UPDATE: As of June 30, 2025, 46 copyright lawsuits against AI companies filed in the U.S. Additions to this list: Disney v. Midjourney, Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, Justice v. Suno, Justice v. Uncharted Labs, Brave Software v. Dow Jones (although voluntarily dismissed). Three cases were voluntarily dismissed: Millette v. Google, Millette v. NVIDA, Brave Software v. News Corp. That leaves 43 lawsuits still pending.

For the U.S. map of all the current cases by jurisdiction (as of Dec. 5, 2025), visit here.

Updated U.S. Map of Copyright Suits v. AI (Dec. 5, 2025) = 65 suits

Court decisions in AI cases

• Judge Garnett’s denial of Bloomberg’s motion to dismiss book authors’ claims in Huckabee v. Bloomberg (Nov. 24, 2025)
• Magistrate Judge Wang’s opinion holding OpenAI waived its attorney-client privilege as to reasons and communications re deletion of Books 1, 2 from Library Genesis in books class in In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation (Oct. 27, 2025)
• Judge Stein denial of OpenAI’s motion to strike alleged download from shadow libraries claims in books class in In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation (Oct. 27, 2025)
• Judge Stein denial of OpenAI’s motion to dismiss output claims in books class in In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation (Oct. 27, 2025)
• Judge Alsup’s denial of Meta’s motion to stay (Sept. 11, 2025)
• Judge Alsup grants certification of class action to book authors in Bartz v. Anthropic (Jul. 17, 2025) (first class to be certified)
• Judge Chhabria decision granting Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on DMCA CMI claim in Kadrey v. Meta (June 27, 2025)
• Judge Chhabria decision granting Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on fair use in Kadrey v. Meta (June 25, 2025)
• Judge Alsup decision granting in part Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment on fair use in Bartz v. Anthropic (June 23, 2025)
• Judge Stein order denying Raw Story Media’s motion to reconsider DMCA CMI dismissal in Raw Story Media v. OpenAI (Jun. 18, 2025)
• Judge Bibas opinion explaining grant of summary judgment and certification of fair use and copyrightability of headnotes for interlocutory appeal in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence (May 23, 2025)
• Judge Chhabria order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss DMCA claim in Kadrey v. Meta (Mar. 7, 2025)
• Judge Bibas opinion finding infringement and rejecting fair use in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence (Feb. 11, 2025)
• Judge Rakoff order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss DMCA claims in The Intercept Media v. OpenAI (Feb. 2, 2025)
• Ninth Circuit grants interlocutory appeal of DMCA claims dismissal in Doe 1 v. Github (Dec. 19, 2024)
• Judge Rakoff order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss DMCA claims in The Intercept Media v. OpenAI (Nov. 21, 2024)
• Judge McMahon granting motion to dismiss DMCA claims in Raw Story Media v. OpenAI (Nov. 7, 2024)
• Judge Tigar grants leave to Doe 1 Plaintiffs to file interlocutory appeal of DMCA claims in Doe 1 v. Github (Sept. 27, 2024)
• Judge Orrick order denying in part motion to dismiss in Sarah Andersen v. Stability AI (Aug. 12, 2024) (allows “compressed copies” and active inducement theories).
• Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin order dismissing unfair competition claim (July 30, 2024).
• Judge Tigar order dismissing DMCA CMI claims in Doe 1 v. Github, Microsoft (Jun. 24, 2024)
• Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin order dismissing most of claims in Tremblay v. OpenAI and Silverman v. OpenAI (Feb. 12, 2024).
• Judge Tigar order dismissing most of claims in Doe 1 v. Github, Microsoft (Jan. 22, 2024)
• Judge Chhabria order dismissing most of claims in Kadrey v. Meta (Nov. 20, 2023).
• Judge Orrick order granting in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in Sarah Anderson v. Stability AI LTD (Oct. 30, 2023).
• Judge Bibas decision rejecting summary judgment and analysis of fair use in light of Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith and Google v. Oracle decisions in Thomson Reuters v. Ross (Sept. 25, 2023). However, on Aug. 22, 2024, by oral order, Judge Bibas invited parties to renew their motions for summary judgment: “I invite Thomson Reuters to renew its motions for summary judgment on those issues and Ross to renew its cross-motion for summary judgment on fair use. Thus, the parties may submit two sets of additional briefing on (1) copyrightability, validity, and infringement, and (2) the defense of fair use. In the briefing, the parties may also choose to address merger, scenes a faire, copyright misuse, and innocent infringement, as I instructed this morning.” See Judge Bibas’s decision on Feb. 11, 2025 and May 23, 2025.

65 Copyright lawsuits in US

*Jurisdictions ordered by most to fewest lawsuits.

**Please note some cases against OpenAI are listed twice because they were transferred from other districts to the MDL Court with Judge Sidney Stein for In re ChatGPT Infringement Litigation for pretrial proceedings. The total number counts each case only once, however, based on the jurisdiction of original filing (and not MDL transfers, which could return back to the original court).

31 N.D. Cal. + 21 SDNY + 3 Delaware + 4 CD Cal. + 2 Mass. + 2 ND Ill. + 1 Colorado + 1 Montana = 65 suits

Northern District of California: 31 LAWSUITS

(*3 voluntarily dismissed: Millette v. Google, Millette v. NVIDA, Brave Software v. News Corp.)

Ted Entertainment Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 5:25-cv-10287 (filed Nov. 26, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [YouTube videos]

• Authors of YouTube videos Jennifer Gilmore allege their videos were acquired through unauthorized scraping and accessed without permission to train NVIDIA’s model Cosmos
• NVIDIA video model
• Counts: (1) Violation of DMCA Anti-Circumvention
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Rom Bar-Nissim, HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP
  • Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Tom Kherker, Leigh S. Montgomery, Natischa Volpe, ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Edward Davila

__________________________________________________________________________________

Tanzer v. Salesforce, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-08862 (filed Oct. 15, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books] [related case]

• Authors of books E. Molly Tanzer, Jennifer Gilmore allege their books were used without permission to train Saleforce’s model, and Salesforce allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries
• Salesforce LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L Young, William Castillo Guardado, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Charles Breyer

Alexander v. Salesforce, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-09560 (filed Nov. 5, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books] [related case]

• Authors of books Tasha Alexander alleges her books were used without permission to train Saleforce’s model, and Salesforce allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries
• Salesforce LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Lesley E. Weaver, Anne K. Davis, Joshua D. Samra, BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
  • Joseph W. Cotchett, Brian Danitz, Gia Jung, Caroline Yuen, Karin B. Swope, Thomas Loeser, Andrew Fuller, Jacob Alhadeff, COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Charles Breyer

__________________________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Hendrix v. Apple Inc, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-075583 (filed Sept. 11, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books Gardy Hendrix & Jennifer Roberson allege their books were without permission to train Apple’s model, and Apple allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries: “Regardless of how Apple uses the works in its private training data library in the future, this cannot negate that the initial copying of works sourced from shadow libraries infringed on Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ exclusive rights.”
• Apple Intelligence large language model
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Benjamin Gould, Derek W. Loeser, Chris N. Ryder, William K. Dreher, Elizabeth W. Tarbell, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
  • Matthew Butterick, BUTTERICK LAW PC
• Defendant’s attorneys: Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Melanie M. Blunschi, Elana Nightingale Dawson, LATHAM & WATKINS for Apple
• Case assigned to

Martinez-Conde v. Apple, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 4:25-cv-08695 (filed Oct. 9, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books Susanna Martinez-Conde, Stephen L. Macknik allege their books were without permission to train Apple’s model, and Apple allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries
• Apple LLMs
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L Young, Holden J. Benon, Louis Kessler, Alexander Zeng, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
• Defendant’s attorneys: Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Melanie M. Blunschi, Elana Nightingale Dawson, LATHAM & WATKINS for Apple
• Case assigned to Judge Gonzalez Rogers

Alexander v. Apple, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 4:25-cv-09090 (filed Oct. 22, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Author of books Tasha Alexander alleges her books were without permission to train Apple’s model, and Apple allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries
• Apple LLMs
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Lesley E. Weaver, Anne K. Davis, Joshua D. Samra, BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
  • Joseph W. Cotchett, Brian Danitz, Gia Jung, Caroline Yuen, Karin B. Swope, Thomas Loeser, Andrew Fuller, Jacob Alhadeff, COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Melanie M. Blunschi, Elana Nightingale Dawson, LATHAM & WATKINS for Apple
• Case assigned to Judge Gonzalez Rogers

__________________________________________________________________________________

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-00135-UNA (filed Aug. 14, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [photographs] [refiling of prior lawsuit in Delaware]

• Authors of photographs allege image generator used photographs to train AI
• Stability AI model: Stable Diffusion model, text-to-image
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement, (2) Providing False Copyright Management Information in Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a), (3) trademark infringement, (4) unfair competition 43(a) of Lanham Act, (5) trademark dilution 43(c) Lanham Act, (6) Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. §§ 17200, (7) Trademark Dilution in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • David R. Singh, Benjamin E. Marks, Jared R. Friedmann, Brian Liegel of WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Aditya Vijay Kamdar, Brittany Warren, Christopher Adler, Timothy Chen Saulsbury, MORRISON & FOERSTER
• Case Assigned to Judge Trina Thompson

__________________________________________________________________________________

Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 4:2025cv06213 (filed July 23, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [adult videos]

• Author of adult videos sued Meta for alleged copyright infringement in allegedly BitTorrenting adult videos and using them to train Meta’s AI model
• Llama 4 large language model
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement and (2) Secondary copyright infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Trey D. Brown, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
  • Christian W. Waugh, WAUGH PLLC
  • Jeremy J. Thompson, Law Office of Jeremy J. Thompson PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys: Angela Dunning, Kimberley Bittinger, Sam Blankenship, Thomas Yeh, Ye Eun Chun, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Eumi Lee

__________________________________________________________________________________

Denial v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-02503 (filed June 30, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [registered non-book textual works and unregistered textual works, including books] [*TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL]

• Authors of non-book textual works sue OpenAI for training AI model with their copyrighted works contained in shadow libraries or scraped online
• Authors include: Catherine Denial, A proper light before the country: the shifting politics of gender and kinship among the Dakota, Ojibwe and non-native communities of the Upper Midwest, 1825-1845; Steven A. Schwartz, A Comprehensive System for Item Analysis in Psychological Scale Construction, Journal of Educational Measurement 15, no. 2; Ian McDowell, Wilmington Massacre was Confederacy’s Revenge,Yes! Weekly
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement (Non-Book Infringement Class); (2) Vicarious Infringement (Non-Book Infringement Class); (3) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.(ALL); (4) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unregistered Class); (5) CMI-Stripping: Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) (ALL); (6) Conversion (Unregistered Class); (7) Unjust Enrichment / Quasi-Contract (Unregistered Class); (8) Breach of Contract as a Third-Party Beneficiary (Unregistered Class); (9) Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Unregistered Class); (10) Larceny/Receipt of Stolen Property, Cal. Penal Code § 496(a), (c) (Unregistered Class); (11) Sherman Act – Conspiracy to Restrain Trade, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 3 (ALL)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • David Boies, Jesse Panuccio, Joshua Stein, Maxwell Pritt, Reed Forbush, Evan Matthew Ezray, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Aaron Cera, Holden J. Benon, Alexander Zeng, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
  • Bryan L. Clobes, Mohammed Rathur, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • [same in In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation in MDL, see below]
• Case assigned to Judge Edward Chen; now Judge Stein in MDL

__________________________________________________________________________________

Brave Software v. News Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-02503 (filed Mar. 12, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [news articles] [*VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED]

• Company for Brave browser that offers functionality to improve the results of third-party chatbots
• Type of AI: browser application used for Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)
• Count: (1) Non-infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Robert D. Carroll, Andrew S. Ong, Timothy Keegan, Ishika Desai, GOODWIN PROCTER L.L.P.
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Paul Cappuccio, Brett Katz, TORRIDON LAW
• Case assigned to Judge Charles Breyer

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bartz v. Anthropic, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:24-cv-05417 (filed Aug. 19, 2024) (certified class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [books] [proposed class settlement $1.5 billion preliminarily approved]

• Authors of books Andrea Bartz, Kirk Wallace Johnson, Charles Graeber allege their books were without permission to train Anthropic’s model
• Anthropic’s AI model: LLM (Claude)
• Count: (1) Direct infringement (including training copies)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit Dwarka Nath, J. Craig Smyser, Jordan W. Connors, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
  • Reilly Stoler, Rachel Geman, Wesley Dozier, Anna Freymann, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
  • Scott J. Sholder, CeCe M. Cole, COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAM & SHEPPARD LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Angel Tang Nakamura, Douglas A. Winthrop, Joseph Farris, Estayvaine Bragg, Jessica Lim Gillotte, ARNOLD & PORTER
  • Joseph Wetzel, LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Mark Lemley, LEX LUMINA
• Case assigned to Judge William Alsup
• Order
  • On fair use: Judge Alsup decision granting in part Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment on fair use in Bartz v. Anthropic (June 23, 2025)
  • On class certification: certification of class action to book authors in Bartz v. Anthropic (Jul. 17, 2025)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Millette v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:24-cv-04710 (filed Aug. 2, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [related case] [YouTube videos] [TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL]

• Creators of YouTube videos allege that OpenAI infringed their copyright by scraping their videos and using them to train OpenAI’s model
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Unjust enrichment or restitution under California law, (2) Unfair competition under California law, (3) Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 93A et seq., (4) Direct Copyright Infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: L. Timothy Fisher, Joseph I Marchese, Julian C. Diamond, Joshua Glatt, BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Sarang Damle, Rachel R. Blitzer, Elana Nightingale Dawson, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson Roz Bennett, Melody Ellen Wong, Rose S. Lee, Carolyn M. Homer, Max Levy, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI
• Case related to Millette v. Google, Millette v. NVIDIA
• Case assigned to Judge James Donato. Transferred to Judge Sidney H. Stein  in MDL.

Millette v. Google, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 5:24-cv-04708 (filed Aug. 2, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [related case] [YouTube videos] [*VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED]

• Creators of YouTube videos allege that Google infringed their copyright by scraping their videos and using them to train Google’s model
• Counts: (1) Unjust enrichment or restitution under California law, (2) Unfair competition under California law, (3) Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 93A et seq., (4) Direct Copyright Infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: L. Timothy Fisher, Joseph I Marchese, Julian C. Diamond, Joshua Glatt, BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
• Defendants’ attorneys: Benedict Hur, Simona Agnolucci, Michael Rome, Eduardo Santacana, Alyxandra Vernon, Anika Holland, Isabella McKinley Corbo, WILKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
• Case related to Millette v. OpenAI, Millette v. NVIDIA
• Case assigned to Judge James Donato.

Millette v. NVIDIA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 5:24-cv-04708 (filed Aug. 14, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [related case] [YouTube videos] [*VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED]

• Creators of YouTube videos allege that NVIDIIA infringed their copyright by scraping their videos and using them to train NVIDIA’s model
• Counts: (1) Unjust enrichment or restitution under California law, (2) Unfair competition under California law, (3) Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 93A et seq., (4) Direct Copyright Infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: L. Timothy Fisher, Joseph I Marchese, Julian C. Diamond, Joshua Glatt, BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
• Defendants’ attorneys: Vassi Iliadis, Elliot Herzig, Neal Kumar Katyal, William Havemann, Nathanial A.G. Zelinsky, Ezra P. Louvis, HOGAN LOVELLS
• Case related to Millette v. OpenAI, Millette v. Google
• Case assigned to Judge James Donato

__________________________________________________________________________________

Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 5:24-cv-03811 (filed Oct. 18, 2023) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [lyrics of musical works] [pending motion to file Second Amended Complaint to include shadow libraries]

• Music publishers led by Universal Music Group (UMG) sue Anthropic PBC for its chatbot Claude’s alleged infringement of their copyrights in musical works and seeks $75 million in damages: “In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works—including the lyrics to myriad musical compositions owned or controlled by Publishers.”
• Anthropic’s AI model: LLM (Claude)
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) contributory infringement, (3) vicarious infringement, (4) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Steven A. Riley, Tim Harvey, Grace Peck, RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC;
  • Matthew J. Oppenheim, Nicholas C. Hailey, Audrey Adu-Appiah, Jennifer Pariser, Andrew Guerra, Timothy Chung, OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP;
  • Richard S. Mandel, Jonathan Z. King, Richard Dannay, COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
  • Bina G. Patel, Christopher J. Wiener, Jeffrey G. Knowles, COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
• Defendants’ attorneys
  • Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Sarang Damle, Brittany Lovejoy, LATHAM & WATKINS for Anthropic PBC
  • Aubrey B. Harwell, III, Nathan C. Sanders, Olivia Rose Arboneaux, NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
• Case reassigned to Judge Eumi Lee

__________________________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Stewart O’Nan v. Databricks, Inc., Mosaic ML in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-01451 (filed Mar. 8, 2024) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books allege their books were used without permission in training Mosaic
• Authors include Stewart O’Nan, Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene
• Defendants’ AI model: LLM
• Two counts: (1) direct infringement by Mosaic in training its model, and (2) vicarious infringement by Databricks after acquiring Mosaic
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Elissa Buchanan, Evan Creutz, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick.
  • Brian D Clark, Laura Matson, Arielle S. Wagner, Eura Chang, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
• Defendants’ attorneys: Jedediah Wakefield, David L. Hayes, Ryan Kwock, Zachary Harned, Deena Greenberg Feit, Charles Moulins, FENWICK & WEST LLP, for defendants Mosaic and Databricks
• Consolidated with Makkai v. Databricks
• Case assigned to Judge Charles Breyer

Makkai v. Databricks, Inc., Mosaic ML in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:24-cv-02653 (filed Aug. 27, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books Rebecca Makkai, Jason Reynolds allege their books were used without permission in training Mosaic
• Defendants’ AI model: LLM
• Two counts: (1) direct infringement by Mosaic in training its model, and (2) vicarious infringement by Databricks after acquiring Mosaic
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Brian O’Mara, Amy E. Keller, Nada Djordjevic, James A. Ulwick, David A. Straite, DICELLO LEVITT LLP
  • Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander J. Sweatman, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
• Defendants’ attorneys: Jedediah Wakefield, David L. Hayes, Ryan Kwock, Zachary Harned, Deena Greenberg Feit, Charles Moulins, FENWICK & WEST LLP, for defendants Mosaic and Databricks
• Consolidated with O’Nan v. Databricks
• Case assigned to Judge Charles Breyer

__________________________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Abdi Nazemian v. NVIDIA Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-01454 (filed Mar. 8, 2024) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] (related case) [books]

• Authors of books Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, Stewart O’Nan allege their books were used without permission in training Nvidia’s AI model NeMo
• One count: (1) Direct infringement (make copies, publicly display copies or derivative works, or distribute copies or derivative works).
• NVIDIA’S AI model: LLM
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L Young, Elissa Buchanan, Evan Creutz, William Castillo Guardado, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick.
  • Brian D Clark, Laura Matson, Arielle S. Wagner, Eura Chang, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
• Defendant’s attorney:
  • Sean S. Pak, Alexander Benjamin Spiro, Andrew H. Schapiro, Ella McCrone Hallwass, Jessica Anne Rose, Ron Hagiz, Cary Adickman, QUINN EMANUEL URGQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
  • Neal Kumar Katyal, William Havemann, Nathanial A.G. Zelinsky, Trenton H. Norris, HOGAN LOVELLS
• Related to Dubus v. NVIDIA
• Case assigned to Judge Jon Steven Tigar

Dubus v. NVIDIA Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 4:24-cv-02655 (filed May 2, 2024) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] (related case) [books]

• Authors of books Andre Dubus, III, Susan Orlean allege their books were used without permission in training Nvidia’s AI model NeMo.
• NVIDIA’S AI model: LLM
• One count: (1) Direct infringement (make copies, publicly display copies or derivative works, or distribute copies or derivative works).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Brian O’Mara, Amy E. Keller, Nada Djordjevic, James A. Ulwick, David A. Straite, DICELLO LEVITT LLP
  • Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander J. Sweatman, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Sean S. Pak, Alexander Benjamin Spiro, Andrew H. Schapiro, Ella McCrone Hallwass, Jessica Anne Rose, Ron Hagiz, QUINN EMANUEL URGQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
  • Neal Kumar Katyal, William Havemann, Nathanial A.G. Zelinsky, HOGAN LOVELLS
• Related to Nazemian v. NVIDIA
• Case assigned to Judge Jon Steven Tigar

_________________________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Richard Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03417 (filed July 7, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT].[First Consolidated Amended Complaint] [books]

• Authors of books allege their books were used without permission in “the Books3 section of ThePile” database, drawn from the shadow library Bibliotik, to train Meta’s AI program, LLaMA.
• Authors include Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden
• Meta’s AI model: LLM (LlaMa)
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) unjust enrichment, (6) negligence.
• First consolidated amended complaint: (1) direct infringement (training copies).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • David Boies, David L. Simons, Jesse Panuccio, Joshua I Schiller, Joshua Stein, Maxwell Pritt, Jay Schuffenhauer, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Aaron Cera, Holden J. Benon, Louis A. Kessler, Margaux Poueymirou, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick.
  • Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander J. Sweatman, Mohammed Rathur, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
  • Daniel J. Muller, VENTURA, HERSEY & MULLER LLP
  • David A. Straite, DICELLO LEVITT LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Bobby A. Ghajar, Colette Ani Ghazarian, Judd D. Lauter, Mark Weinstein, Judd Lauter, Kathleen R. Hartnett, Elizabeth Lee Stameshkin, COOLEY LLP;
  • Angela Dunning, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
• Consolidated with Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Huckabee v. Meta, Farnsworth v. Meta
• Case assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria
• Order
  • On fair use: Judge Chhabria decision granting Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on fair use in Kadrey v. Meta (June 25, 2025)
  • On DMCI CMI claim: Judge Chhabria decision granting Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on DMCA CMI claim in Kadrey v. Meta (June 27, 2025)

Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-04663 (filed Sept. 12, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [First Consolidated Amended Complaint] [books]

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in Meta’s LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) and in derivative works in LLaMA’s responses
• Authors include Michael Chabon, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman
• Meta’s AI model: LLM (LlaMa)
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• First consolidated amended complaint: (1) direct infringement (training copies).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Daniel J. Muller, VENTURA, HERSEY & MULLER LLP for Andrew Sean Greer, Ayelet Waldman, David Henry Hwang, Jacqueline Woodson, Junot Diaz, Laura Lippman, Matthew Klam, Michael Chabon, Rachel Louise Snyder, Ta-Nehisi Coates;
  • Bryan L. Clobes, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, for Ayelet Waldman, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Michael Chabon, Rachel Louise Snyder
• Defendant’s attorneys: Bobby A. Ghajar, COOLEY LLP
• Consolidated with Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Huckabee v. Meta, Farnsworth v. Meta
• Case assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria

Mike Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:2023cv06663 (filed Sept. 12, 2023; revived and consolidated on July 5, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in Meta’s LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) and in derivative works in LLaMA’s responses
• Meta’s AI model: LLM (LlaMa)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Bobby A. Ghajar, COOLEY LLP
  • Angela Dunning, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
• Consolidated with Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Chabon v. Meta, Farnsworth v. Meta
• Case assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria

Farnworth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:2023cv06893 (filed Oct. 1, 2024; consolidated on Oct. 18, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in Meta’s LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) and in derivative works in LLaMA’s responses
• Meta’s AI model: LLM (LlaMa)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Daniel Hutchinson, Reilly Stoler, Rachel Geman, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMMANN & BERNSTEIN, LL
  • Scott J. Sholder, CeCe M. Cole, COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAM & SHEPPARD LLP
• Consolidated with Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Chabon v. Meta, Huckabee v. Meta
• Case assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria

Related Case to Kadrey

Entrepreneur Media v. Meta, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-09579 (filed Nov. 6, 2025). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [business books and magazines]

• Author of business books and magazines allege their books were used without permission to train Meta’s model, and Meta’s allegedly used pirated books datasets from shadow libraries
• Meta LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Moez M. Kabar, Michael M. Purpura, Lee Linderman, Britnee Bui, HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
  • Michael B. McClellan, Benjamin P. Pugh, Jason L. Morris, Harlye S. Carlton, NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: See above Kadrey
• Case assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria

__________________________________________________________________________________

In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation (TREMBLAY, SILVERMAN, CHABON CONSOLIDATED)

Paul Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03223 (filed June 28, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT] [books] [*TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL]

• Authors of books allege their books were used to train OpenAI’s GPT without permission based on illegal digital copies of the books from shadow libraries; and that GPT-4 produces detailed summaries of their books upon queries.
• Authors include Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• Counts in FCAC: (1) Direct infringement (training, retained copies, models as infringing derivative works), (2) Unfair competition.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Kathleen J. McMahon of Joseph Saveri Law Firm; and Matthew Butterick.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Allyson Roz Bennett, Joseph C. Gratz, Tiffany Cheung, Alexandra Marie Ward, Rose S. Lee, Carolyn M. Homer, Max Levy, MORRISON & FOERSTER
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas E. Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case consolidated with Silverman v. OpenAI, Chabon v. OpenAI
• Case assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. Transferred to Judge Sydney Stein in MDL.
  • Order dismissing most of claims in Complaint (Feb. 12, 2024).
  • Order dismissing unfair competition claim of First Amended Complaint (July 30, 2024).

Sarah Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03223 (filed July 7, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT] *consolidated and recaptioned In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation [books]

• Authors of books allege their books were used to train OpenAI’s GPT without permission based on illegal digital copies of the books from shadow libraries; and that GPT-4 produces detailed summaries of their books upon queries.
• Authors include Sarah Silverman, Richard Kadrey, and Christopher Golden
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Original counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• Counts in FCAC: (1) Direct infringement (training, retained copies, models as infringing derivative works), (2) Unfair competition.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Kathleen J. McMahon, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS; Allyson Roz Bennett, Joseph C. Gratz, Tiffany Cheung, MORRISON & FOERSTER
• Case consolidated with Tremblay v. OpenAI, Chabon v. OpenAI
• Case assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin

Chabon v. OpenAI Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-04625-PHK (filed Sept. 8, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT] *consolidated and recaptioned In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation [books]

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in OpenAI’s AI and in derivative works in ChatGPT’s responses
• Authors include Michael Chabon, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• Counts in FCAC: (1) Direct infringement (training, retained copies, models as infringing derivative works), (2) Unfair competition.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Daniel J. Muller, VENTURA, HERSEY & MULLER LLP for Andrew Sean Greer, Ayelet Waldman, David Henry Hwang, Jacqueline Woodson, Junot Diaz, Laura Lippman, Matthew Klam, Michael Chabon, Rachel Louise Snyder, Ta-Nehisi Coates;
  • Bryan L. Clobes, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, for Ayelet Waldman, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Michael Chabon, Rachel Louise Snyder
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Sarang Damle, Allison L Stillman, LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson Roz Bennett, Tiffany Cheung, Rose S. Lee, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas E. Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case consolidated with Tremblay v. OpenAI, Silverman v. OpenAI
• Case reassigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin

__________________________________________________________________________________

Sarah Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-00201 (filed 1/13/23) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [First Amended COMPLAINT] [visual artworks]

• Authors of visual art assert defendants’ AI text to image generators violated their copyrights by training their models using copies of their works and by producing infringing outputs of images.
• Defendants’ AI model: text-to-image and text-to-video diffusion models
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) violation of statutory right of publicity Cal. Civ. Code s. 3344, (5) violation of common law right of publicity, (6) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (7) breach of contract by DeviantArt.
• First Amended Counts: (1) direct infringement of the LAION-5B Registered Work by training the Stability Models, (2) inducement of copyright infringement by distributing Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 for free, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI by Stability [DISMISSED], (4) unjust enrichment Cal. law by Stability [DISMISSED with leave to amend], (5) direct infringement of the LAION-400M Registered Works by training the Midjourney 400M Models, (6) Direct copyright infringement of the LAION-5B Registered Works by training the Midjourney 5B Models, (7) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI by Midjourney [DISMISSED], (8) Lanham Act — false endorsement by unauthorized commercial use of artists’ names against Midjourney, (9) Lanham Act — vicarious trade-dress violation by profiting from imitations of protectable trade dress against Midjourney, (10) unjust enrichment Cal. law by Midjourney [DISMISSED with leave to amend], (11) direct infringement of the LAION-5B Registered Works by training the Runway Models, (12) Inducement infringement by distributing Stable Diffusion 1.5 for free by Runway, (13) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI by Runway [DISMISSED], (14) unjust enrichment Cal. law by Runway [DISMISSED with leave to amend], (15) direct infringement by copying the DreamUp–CompVis Model and incorporating it into DreamUp against DeviantArt, (16) breach of contract by DeviantArt, (17), unjust enrichment Cal. law by DeviantArt [DISMISSED with leave to amend].
• Judge Orrick’s Order on Aug. 12, 2024: “Defendants’ motions to dismiss the DMCA claims are GRANTED and the DMCA claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims are GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims are DENIED. Midjourney’s motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims is DENIED. DeviantArt’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims is GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Elissa A. Buchanan, Travis Manfredi, Louis Kessler, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick;
  • Arielle S. Wagner, Brian D Clark, Eura Chang, Laura Matson, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Andrew Michael Gass, Brittany Nichole Lovejoy, Michael H. Rubin, LATHAM & WATKINS for Deviant Art, Inc.;
  • Angela Lucille Dunning, Arminda B. Bepko, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP for Midjourney, Inc.; [withdrawn: James Asheton Lemay, Judd D. Lauter, Kayla Elizabeth Blaker, COOLEY LLP]
  • Amir R. Ghavi, Michael C. Keats, Nicole M. Jantzi, Paul M. Schoenhard, FRIED FRANK HARRIS SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP and Mark Lemley, LEX LUMINA for Stability AI Ltd.
• Case assigned to Judge William H. Orrick
  • Order granting in part defendants’ motions to dismiss (Oct. 30, 2023).
  • Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss FAC (Aug. 12, 2024)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Doe 1 v. Github, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No 4:2022cv06823 (filed 11/03/22) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [computer programs] [on appeal to Ninth Circuit]

• Authors of computer programs
• Defendants’ AI model: LLM (Codex)
• Counts: (1) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (2) breach of contract open-source license violations, (3) breach of contract by Github, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations Cal. common law, (5) negligent interference with prospective economic relations Cal. common law, (6) unjust enrichment, (7) unfair competition Cal. law, (8) negligence.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Elissa A. Buchanan, Travis Manfredi, Louis Kessler, Steven Noel Williams, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick.
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, Alyssa M. Caridis, Daniel Justice, William Oxley, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Github, Inc. and Microsoft Corp.
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Alexandra Marie Ward, Allyson Roz Bennett, Tiffany Cheung, Melody Ellen Wong, Michael A. Jacobs, Rose S. Lee, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI
• Case assigned to Judge Jon Steven Tigar
  • Order dismissing most of claims (Jan. 22, 2024)
  • Order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss First Amended Complaint (June 24, 2024)

__________________________________________________________________________________

In re Google Generative AI Litigation (Leovy, Zhang CONSOLIDATED)

J.L. v. Alphabet Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-03440-LB (filed Jul. 11, 2023) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] (proposed class action).*also involves privacy claims] [social media posts]

• Counts: (1) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (2) negligence, (3) invasion of privacy under Cal. Constitution, (4) intrusion upon seclusion, (5) larceny/receipt of stolen property, (6) conversion, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) direct infringement, (9) vicarious infringement, (10) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart, Tiara Avaness, Valter Malkhasyan, Tracey Cowan, Timothy K. Giordano of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: David H. Kramer, WILSON SONSINI for Alphabet, Google DeepMind, and Google LLC; Eric Preston Tuttle, Maura Lea Rees, WILSON SONSINI for Google LLC
• Case reassigned to Judge Eumi Lee

Zhang v. Google, Alphabet, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-02531 (filed Apr. 26, 2024) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [Exhibit B] [visual artworks]

• Authors of visual art assert defendants’ AI text to image generator, Imagen, violated their copyrights by training their models using copies of their works and by producing infringing outputs of images.
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Elissa A. Buchanan, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM; and Matthew Butterick;
  • Brian D Clark, Laura Matson, Arielle S. Wagner, Eura Chang, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
• Case reassigned to Judge Eumi Lee

__________________________________________________________________________________

southern district of new york: 21 LAWSUITS

__________________________________________________________________________________

The New York Times Co. v. Perplexity AI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-10106 (filed Dec. 5, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [news articles]

• Chicago Tribune Perplexity for alleged use of its news articles for use in Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)
• Perplexity AI answer engine
• Counts: (1) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106(1)) – Perplexity’s Acquisition of the Chicago Tribune’s Copyrighted Works to Create “Inputs” for its GenAI Products; Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106(2)) – Perplexity’s Copying of the Chicago Tribune’s Copyrighted Works to Create “Outputs” to User Queries; (3) Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement; (4) False Designation of Origin and Dilution of the Chicago Tribune’s Trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1125), (5) Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Robert Parker, Jenny L. Colgate, Kristen J. Logan, Bryan B. Thompson, Alexandra Hughes, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
• Case assigned to

__________________________________________________________________________________

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity AI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-10094 (filed Dec. 4, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [news articles]

• Chicago Tribune Perplexity for alleged use of its news articles for use in Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)
• Perplexity AI answer engine
• Counts: (1) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106(1)) – Perplexity’s Acquisition of the Chicago Tribune’s Copyrighted Works to Create “Inputs” for its GenAI Products; Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106(2)) – Perplexity’s Copying of the Chicago Tribune’s Copyrighted Works to Create “Outputs” to User Queries; (3) Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement; (4) False Designation of Origin and Dilution of the Chicago Tribune’s Trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1125), (5) Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Robert Parker, Jenny L. Colgate, Kristen J. Logan, Bryan B. Thompson, Alexandra Hughes, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
• Case assigned to

__________________________________________________________________________________

Reddit v. SerpAPI, Perplexity, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-08736 (filed Nov. 22, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [social media posts]

• Reddit sues WMProxy, Oxylabs UAB, Perplexity AI, Inc., SerpApi LLC for unauthorized scraping of Reddit posts
• Perplexity AI answer engine
• Counts: (1) DMCA Anti-Circumvention of Technological Control Measures, 1201(a)(1)(A), (2) Vicarious infringement v. OpenAI, (3) Contributory infringement against Microsoft, (4) Contributory infringement against all, (5) DMCA CMI 1202 claim.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • William A. Maher, Justin Zimnoch, WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
  • Reid M. Bolton, Matthew R. Ford, William D. Gohl, BARTLIT BECK LLP
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Jeffrey G. Homrig, Jennifer Falk, Nili T. Moghaddam, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP for SerpApi LLC
  • Nathaniel P.T. Read, N. READ & CO. PLLC
• Case assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer

__________________________________________________________________________________

Advance Local Media LLC v. Cohere Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-01305 (filed Feb. 2, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Conde Nast, Atlantic Monthly, and other publishers of newspapers and magazines sue Cohere, an AI platform for enterprise, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI and its outputs
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement, (2) Trafficking of Technology, Product, Service, or Device for Use in Circumventing Technological Measure Controlling Access (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)) v. SerpApi and Oxylabs, (3) Trafficking of Technology, Product, Service, or Device for Use in Circumventing Technological Measure Protecting Right of Copyright Owner (17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)) Secondary Copyright Infringement v. SerpApi and Oxylabs, and (4) Unfair Competition, (5) Unjust Enrichment, (6) Civil Conspiracy v. SerpApi and Perplexity AI
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Scott Zebrak, Jennifer Pariser, Yunyi Chen, Meredith Stewart, Audrey L. Adu-Appiah, OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, Amanda E. Lack, Avery Cartwright, Geoffrey Moss, Mark S. Puzella, R. David Hosp, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Colleen McMahon

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dow Jones v. Perplexity AI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-07984 (filed Oct. 21, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT]

• Corporate owner of Wall St. J. and New York Post sue Perplexity AI, platform that answers queries, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Counts: (1) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106) – Perplexity’s Copying of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Work to Create “Inputs” for Its RAG Index, (2) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106) – Perplexity’s Copying of Plaintiffs’ Protected Work to Generate “Outputs” to User Queries, and (3) False Designation of Origin and Dilution of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: William P. Barr, Paul T. Cappuccio, Justin M. Romeo, Brett Katz, Genevieve Kelly, TORRIDON LAW PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys: Eugene Y. Mar, James L. Day, Jr., Cameron J. Gibbs, Michelle Kao, FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Katherine Polk Failla

__________________________________________________________________________________

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-07546 (filed Sept. 10, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [encyclopaedia, dictionary, literary works]

• Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster sue Perplexity AI, platform that answers queries, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Counts: (1) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106) – Perplexity’s Copying of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Work to Create “Inputs” for Its RAG Content, (2) Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106) – Perplexity’s Copying of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works to Create “Outputs” to User Queries, and (3) False Designation of Origin and Dilution of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ian Crosby, Davida Brook, Y. Gloria Park, Sarah Hannigan, SUSMAN GODREY L.L.P.; and
• Defendant’s attorneys: Andrew Gass, Sarang Damle, Joseph Wetzel, Brett M. Sandford, Julia Rose Miller, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon

_________________________________________________________________________________

Lehrman v. Lovo, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,1:24-cv-03770 (filed May 16, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT]

• Voice actors sue Lovo, an AI voice and text-to-speech generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI, Lanham Act claims, and state law claims
• Counts: (1) Violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50, 51, (2) Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. GBL § 349, (3) False Advertising in Violation of the New York False Advertising Act, N.Y. GBL § 350, (4) Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. GBL § 349, (5) Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. GBL § 350, (6) Unfair Competition and False Affiliation in Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (7) False Advertising in Violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (8) Unjust Enrichment, (9) Unjust Enrichment, (10) Conversion, (11) Fraud, (12) Breach of Contract, (13) Copyright Infringement, (14) Copyright Infringement, (15) Contributory Copyright Infringement, (16) Unfair Competition
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Steve Cohen, Anna Menkova, POLLOCK COHEN LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • David E. Case, Michael S. Lazaroff, William W. Bergesch, RIMON, P.C.
• Case assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken

__________________________________________________________________________________

UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs d/b/a/ Udio, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-04777 (filed Jun. 24, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [UMG Recordings, Warner Music and Udio settled; Sony Music remains]

• Musics labels sue Udio, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement post-1972 sound recordings, (2) Direct infringement pre-1972 sound recordings
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Moez M. Kaba, Robert Klieger, Mariah N. Rivera, Alexander R. Perry, Rajan Trehan, Robert N. Klieger, HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
  • Jonathan Z. King, COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN P.C.
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Alex Spiro, Andrew H. Schapiro, Todd Anten, Jessica A. Rose, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
  • Andrew Gass, Sarang Damle, Brittany Lovejoy, Nathan Taylor, Steve Feldman, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein

__________________________________________________________________________________

Justice v. Uncharted Labs d/b/a/ Udio, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-05026 (filed Jun. 16, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Country musician Anthony Justice sues Udio, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI and outputs of music generator
• Udio’s AI model: unspecified
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement in copying for training and outputs, (2) Direct infringement in making derivative works
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Jarrett L. Ellzey, Leigh Montgomery, EKSM LLP
  • Krystle Delgado, DELGADO ENTERTAINMENT LAW, PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Andrew Gass, Brittany Lovejoy, LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Andrew H. Schapiro, Jessica Anne Rose, Dylan I. Scher, William F. Patry, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bird v. Microsoft, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-cv-05282 (filed Jun. 24, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [Stayed pending In re ChatGPT Infringement Litigation as MDL Court before Judge Stein]

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in Microsoft’s AI and in derivative works in ChatGPT’s responses
• Type of AI model: Microsoft’s Megatron LLM
• Authors include Kai Bird, Jonathan Alter, Mary Bly, Victor Lavalle, Eugene Linden, Daniel Okrent, Hampton Sides, Jia Tolentino, Rachel Vail, Simon Winchester, Eloisa James
• Counts: (1) Copyright infringement (“by downloading from pirated sources, and, separately, by training on reproduced copies of works”).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit Dwarka Nath, J. Craig Smyser, Charlotte Lepic, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
  • Rachel Geman, Anna Freymann, Wesley Dozier, Danna Elmasry, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
  • Scott J. Sholder, CeCe M. Cole, COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAM & SHEPPARD LLP
• Defendants’ attorneys
  • TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 

__________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. News & World Report, L.P. v. OpenAI, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-09912 (filed Nov. 26, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [U.S. News rankings and articles] [Related to In re ChatGPT Infringement Litigation as MDL Court before Judge Stein below]

• U.S. News sues OpenAI for alleged infringement: “OpenAI provides viewers with access to original content pilfered directly from the USNWR website – for example, by the regurgitation of USNWR college rankings or travel information, not to mention news articles, analysis, and op-eds from USNWR contributors.”
• OpenAI’s model LLM
• Counts: (1) Copyright infringement in scraping copies and training (including storing, processing, and reproducing training datasets including plaintiffs’ works) and outputs of ChatGPT, (2) Contributory infringement, (3) DMCA CMI 1202(b)(1) claim, (4) Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. s. 1114, (5) Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1127, (6) False Designation of Origin and Dilution of Plaintiff’s Trademarks, 15 U.S.C. s. 1125, (7) Dilution and Injury to Business Reputation (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-l).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Kristen J. Logan, Bryan B. Thompson, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 

__________________________________________________________________________________

California Newspaper Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-09904 (filed Nov. 26, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [news articles]

• Newspapers sue OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged infringement
• OpenAI’s model LLM and Microsoft’s Copilot and RAG
• Counts: (1) Copyright infringement in scraping training (including storing, processing, and reproducing training datasets including plaintiffs’ works) and outputs of ChatGPT and Copilot, (2) Vicarious infringement v. OpenAI, (3) Contributory infringement against Microsoft, (4) Contributory infringement against all, (5) DMCA CMI 1202 claim.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Robert Parker, Jenny L. Colgate, Kristen J. Logan, Bryan B. Thompson, Alexandra Hughes, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 

__________________________________________________________________________________

In re ChatGPT Infringement Litigation as MDL Court before Judge Stein: the cases listed below have been consolidated into one MDL court before Judge Sidney Stein for pre-trial purposes, including dispositive motions. They can be grouped into: (1) Class plaintiffs (book authors) and (2) News plaintiffs. The total of cases does not count this as an additional case but instead counts the individual lawsuits (using the same approach as used for consolidated cases outside of MDL). [DOCKET]

CONSOLIDATED “CLASS” CASES

Authors Guild v. Open AI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:23-cv-8292 (filed Sept. 19, 2023) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT] *consolidated

• Authors of books and writings allege their works were used without permission to train and retained in OpenAI’s AI and in derivative works in ChatGPT’s responses
• Authors include David Baldacci, Mary Bly, Michael Connelly, Sylvia Day, Jonathen Franzen, John Grisham, Elin Hilderbrand, Christina Baker Kline, Maya Shanbhag Lang, Victor Lavalle, George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, Douglas Preston, Roxana Robinson, George Sanders, Scott Turow, Rachael Vail.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) contributory infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Anna Freymann, Wesley Dozier, Rachel Geman, Reilly T. Stoler, Ian R. Bensberg, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
  • Scott J. Sholder, CeCe M. Cole, COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAM & SHEPPARD LLP
  • Court designates the law firms Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and Cowan Debaets Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in these actions to act on behalf of the Fiction Authors Class and Non-fiction Authors Class (Feb. 6, 2024)
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Marc Shapiro, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Jared Barrett Briant, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Allison L Stillman, Luke Budiardjo, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson R. Bennett, Andrew L. Perito, Eric Nikolaides, Rose Lee, Tiffany Cheung, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Yujun Zhong, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas Edward Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case consolidated with Alter v. OpenAI, and Basbanes v. Microsoft, OpenAI
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 

Alter v. OpenAI, Microsoft (fomerly Julian Sancton v. OpenAI, Microsoft), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:23-cv-10211 (filed Nov. 21, 2023) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [First Amended COMPLAINT] [First Consolidated Class Action Complaint] *consolidated

• Author of book sues OpenAI and Microsoft Corporation. Complaint alleges OpenAI “copied and data-mined the works of writers, without compensation, to build a machine that is capable (or, as technology advances, will soon be capable) of performing the same type of work for which these writers would be paid.” Then Microsoft provided billions of dollars in investment to OpenAI that facilitated that “the bespoke supercomputing system that OpenAI used to maintain and copy the copyrighted works owned by Plaintiff and the proposed Class.”
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, and (2) contributory infringement.
• Plaintiff’s attorneys: J. Craig Smyser, Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit D. Nath, Charlotte Lepic, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Marc Shapiro, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Jared Barrett Briant, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Elana Nightingale Dawson, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Luke Budiardjo, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson R. Bennett, Andrew L. Perito, Eric Nikolaides, Rose Lee, Tiffany Cheung, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Yujun Zhong, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas Edward Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 
• Consolidated with Authors Guild v. Open AI.

Basbanes v. Microsoft Corp., OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-00084 (filed Jan. 5, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] *consolidated

• Two journalists and nonfiction writers Nicholas Basbanes and Nicholas Gage sue Microsoft and OpenAI for copyright infringement in allegedly using their writings to train their large language models.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, and (3) contributory infringement.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Michael P. Richter, Bryan M. Goldstein, GRANT HERRMANN SCHWARTZ & KLINGER LLP.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp.;
  • Jared Barrett Briant, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
  • Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
• Consolidated with Authors Guild v. Open AI
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein 

In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation (TREMBLAY, SILVERMAN, CHABON CONSOLIDATED) (transferred from ND Cal.)

Paul Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03223 (filed June 28, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT] *consolidated and recaptioned In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation [books] [TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL]

• Authors of books allege their books were used to train OpenAI’s GPT without permission based on illegal digital copies of the books from shadow libraries; and that GPT-4 produces detailed summaries of their books upon queries.
• Authors include Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Original Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) Cal. Unfair Competition violation, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• Counts in FCAC: (1) Direct infringement (training, retained copies, models as infringing derivative works), (2) Unfair competition.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Kathleen J. McMahon of Joseph Saveri Law Firm; and Matthew Butterick.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Allyson Roz Bennett, Joseph C. Gratz, Tiffany Cheung, Alexandra Marie Ward, Rose S. Lee, Carolyn M. Homer, Max Levy, MORRISON & FOERSTER
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas E. Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case consolidated with Silverman v. OpenAI, Chabon v. OpenAI
• Case assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. Transferred to Judge Sydney Stein in MDL.
  • Order dismissing most of claims in Complaint (Feb. 12, 2024).
  • Order dismissing unfair competition claim of First Amended Complaint (July 30, 2024).

__________________________________________________________________________________

Denial v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-02503 (filed June 30, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [registered non-book textual works and unregistered textual works, including books] [TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL]

• Authors of non-book textual works sue OpenAI for training AI model with their copyrighted works contained in shadow libraries or scraped online
• Authors include: Catherine Denial, A proper light before the country: the shifting politics of gender and kinship among the Dakota, Ojibwe and non-native communities of the Upper Midwest, 1825-1845; Steven A. Schwartz, A Comprehensive System for Item Analysis in Psychological Scale Construction, Journal of Educational Measurement 15, no. 2; Ian McDowell, Wilmington Massacre was Confederacy’s Revenge,Yes! Weekly
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement (Non-Book Infringement Class); (2) Vicarious Infringement (Non-Book Infringement Class); (3) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.(ALL); (4) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unregistered Class); (5) CMI-Stripping: Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) (ALL); (6) Conversion (Unregistered Class); (7) Unjust Enrichment / Quasi-Contract (Unregistered Class); (8) Breach of Contract as a Third-Party Beneficiary (Unregistered Class); (9) Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Unregistered Class); (10) Larceny/Receipt of Stolen Property, Cal. Penal Code § 496(a), (c) (Unregistered Class); (11) Sherman Act – Conspiracy to Restrain Trade, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 3 (ALL)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • David Boies, Jesse Panuccio, Joshua Stein, Maxwell Pritt, Reed Forbush, Evan Matthew Ezray, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
  • Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L Young, Aaron Cera, Holden J. Benon, Alexander Zeng, JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
  • Bryan L. Clobes, Mohammed Rathur, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Edward Chen; Judge Stein

__________________________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED “NEWS” CASES

The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:23-cv-11195 (filed Dec. 27, 2023) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT]

• The New York Times sues Microsoft and OpenAI for copyright infringement allegedly (1) “[b]y building training datasets containing millions of copies of Times Works, including by scraping copyrighted Times Works from The Times’s websites and reproducing such works from third-party datasets,” (2) “‘by storing, processing, and reproducing the training datasets containing millions of copies of Times Works to train the GPT models on Microsoft’s supercomputing platform,” (3) “by storing, processing, and reproducing the GPT models trained on Times Works, which GPT models themselves have memorized, on Microsoft’s supercomputing platform,” and (4) “by disseminating generative output containing copies and derivatives of Times Works through the ChatGPT offering.”
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) contributory infringement by Microsoft, (4) contributory infringement by all defendants, (4) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (5) unfair competition by misappropriation, and (6) trademark dilution.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Ian Crosby, Davida Brook, Ellie Dupler, Elisha Barron, Tamar Lusztig, Emily Cronin, Alexander Frawley, Eudokia Spanos, Genevieve Vose Wallace, SUSMAN GODREY L.L.P.; and
  • Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Kristen J. Logan, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Carrie A. Beyer, Elizabeth Mead Cavert Scheibel, Jared Barrett Briant, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, for Microsoft Corp.
  • Elana Nightingale Dawson, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Luke Budiardjo, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson Roz Bennett, Rose S. Lee, Andrew L. Perito, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas Edward Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case related to Daily News and Alter lawsuits below.
• Case assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein

Daily News v. Microsoft, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-03285 (filed Aug. 27, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Newspapers sue OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged infringement
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Copyright infringement in training (including storing, processing, and reproducing training datasets including plaintiffs’ works) and outputs of ChatGPT, (2) Vicarious infringement, (3) Contributory infringement against Microsoft, (4) Contributory infringement against all, (5) DMCA CMI 1202 claim, (6) Common law misappropriation, (7) Trademark dilution under Lanham Act, (8) Dilution and injury to business reputation under NY Law.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Steven Lieberman, Jennifer B. Maisel, Robert Parker, Jenny L. Colgate, Kristen J. Logan, Bryan B. Thompson, ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp.
  • Carrie A. Beyer, Elizabeth Mead Cavert Scheibel, Jared Barrett Briant, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, for Microsoft Corp.
  • Elana Nightingale Dawson, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Andrew Michael Gass, Luke Budiardjo, Sarang Damle, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson Roz Bennett, Rose S. Lee, Andrew L. Perito, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas Edward Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case Related to New York Times v. Microsoft, 1:23-cv-11195, pending motion to consolidate
• Case assigned to Judge Sydney Stein

The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-04872 (filed Aug. 12, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Center for Investigative Reporting sue OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged infringement in downloading, encoding, regurgitating, and producing significant amounts of their works in response to prompts s of ChatGPT.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement by OpenAI, (2) Direct infringement by Microsoft, (3) Contributory infringement by all, (4) DMCA CMI 1202(b)(1) violation by OpenAI, (5) DMCA CMI 1202(b)(3) violation by all, (6) DMCA CMI 1202(b)(1) violation by Microsoft, (7) DMCA CMI 1202(b)(3) violation by Microsoft
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Lauren Carbajal, Stephen Stich Match, Matthew Topic, Thomas Kayes, Steven Art, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendants’ attorneys: See above
• Case Related to New York Times v. Microsoft, 1:23-cv-11195
• Case assigned to Judge Sydney Stein

__________________________________________________________________________________

Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-01514 (filed Feb. 28, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Internet news sites Raw Story and AlterNet sue OpenAI for alleged violations of DMCA Section 1202 in the removal of copyright management information. No copyright claims (yet) filed.
• Counts: (1) DMCA s. 1202(b)(1) violation for removal of CMI.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Lauren Carbajal, Stephen Stich Match, Matthew Topic, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendants’ attorneys
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Daniel Justice, Lisa T. Simpson, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Sarang Damle, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Luke Budiardjo, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson R. Bennett, Andrew Perito, Eric Nikolaides, Rose Lee, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas E. Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Colleen McMahon. Transferred to Judge Sydney Stein in MDL.
  • Order granting motion to dismiss DMCA claims (Nov. 7, 2024)
  • Order denying motion for reconsideration: Judge Stein order denying Raw Story Media’s motion to reconsider DMCA CMI dismissal in Raw Story Media v. OpenAI (Jun. 18, 2025)

Intercept Media Inc. v. OpenAI, Microsoft, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:24-cv-01515 (filed Feb. 28, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Internet news site The Intercept sues OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged violations of DMCA Section 1202 in the removal of copyright management information. No copyright claims (yet) filed.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) DMCA s. 1202(b)(1) violation for removal of CMI, (2) DMCA s. 1202(b)(3) by OpenAI, and (3) DMCA s. 1202(b)(1) by Microsoft.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Lauren Carbajal, Stephen Stich Match, Matthew Topic, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendants’ attorneys Defendants’ attorneys
  • Annette L. Hurst, Christopher J. Cariello, Daniel Justice, Katie Lynn Joyce, Lisa T. Simpson ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP for Microsoft Corp
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel, Allison L Stillman, Sarang Damle, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Luke Budiardjo, Yijun Zhong, LATHAM & WATKINS for OpenAI Defendants
  • Joseph C. Gratz, Allyson R. Bennett, Andrew Perito, Eric Nikolaides, Rose Lee, MORRISON & FOERSTER for OpenAI Defendants
  • Robert A. Van Nest, R. James Slaughter, Christopher S. Sun, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S. Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, Thomas E. Gorman, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Transferred to Judge Sydney Stein in MDL.
  • Order granting and denying in part motion to dismiss (Nov. 21, 2024)

Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, (filed Aug. 30, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [TRANSFERRED to JUDGE STEIN FROM DELAWARE]

• Company producing 45 diverse digital media publications and internet brands, including IGN, Mashable, CNET, ZDNET, PCMag, Lifehacker, BabyCenter, and Everyday Health sues OpenAI for a host of claims including copyright infringement, DMCA 1202(b)(1), (b)(3), removal of CMI claims, and trademark dilution.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM.
• Counts: (1) Copyright Infringement in Training OpenAI LLMs; (2) Copyright Infringement in Output from OpenAI LLMs; (3) Contributory Copyright Infringement Based on End-Users’ Infringement; (4) Common Law Unjust Enrichment; (5) Circumvention of Technical Measures DMCA 1201(A)(1); (6) Removal of CMI, DMCA 1202(B)(1); (7) Distribution of Removed CMI, DMCA 1202(B)(3); (8) Trademark Dilution of Famous Marks, Lanham Act 1125(c)
• Count 9: Dilution under Delaware State Law, 6 Del. s. 3313
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Kristen Healey Cramer, Noelle B. Torrice, BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
  • Lacy H. (“Lance”) Koonce, III, Matthew Leish, Gili Karev, Mariella Salazar, Clara Cassan, KLARIS LAW PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Many: see here.
• Case assigned to Chief Judge Colm Connolly. Transferred to Judge Sydney Stein in MDL.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Huckabee v. Bloomberg, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:23-cv-11195 (filed Dec. 27, 2023) proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [1st AMENDED COMPLAINT]

• Author of books sue Bloomberg L.P., Bloomberg Finance, L.P., for allegedly using “Books3 to train LLMs, with the full knowledge and understanding that the datasets they were using to train their LLMs were assembled from copyrighted works, including copyrighted works of the Plaintiffs and Members of the Class.”
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) DMCA s. 1202 claim for removal of CMI, (4) conversion, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Greg G. Gutzler, Adam J. Levitt, Amy E. Keller, James A. Ulwick, DICELLO LEVITT LLP;
  • Seth Haines, Timothy Hutchinson, Lisa Geary, RMP, LLP
• Defendants’ attorneys: Amir Ghavi, Nicole M. Jantzi, Paul M. Schoenhard, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett 

__________________________________________________________________________________

central district of california = 4 cases

Disney v. MiniMax, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:25-cv-08768(filed Sep. 16, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [movies] [related case]

• Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studio, and Warner Brothers sue MiniMax for alleged infringement of studios’ characters in training MiniMax’ Hailuo Agent image and video model and outputs
• diffusion model
• Counts: (1) Direct copyright infringement and (2) Secondary copyright infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: David R. Singer, Julie A. Shepard, Lauren Greene, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.

Warner Brothers v. Midjourney, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, (filed Sept. 4, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [movies] [related case]

• Warner Brothers sues Midjourney for alleged infringement of studios’ characters in training Midjourney’s model and outputs
• Midjourney’s AI model: diffusion model
• Counts: (1) Direct copyright infringement and (2) Secondary copyright infringement based on Midjourney subscribers’ infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: David R. Singer, Julie A. Shepard, Lauren Greene, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: Bobby A. Ghajar, Judd D. Lauter, John Paul Oleksiuk, Ellie Rae Dupler, COOLEY LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Judge Kronstadt

Disney v. Midjourney, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, (filed Jun. 11, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [movies] [related case]

• Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studio, and related movie studios sue Midjourney for alleged infringement of studios’ characters in training Midjourney’s model and outputs
• Midjourney’s AI model: diffusion model
• Counts: (1) Direct copyright infringement and (2) Secondary copyright infringement based on Midjourney subscribers’ infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: David R. Singer, Julie A. Shepard, Lauren Greene, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: Bobby A. Ghajar, Judd D. Lauter, John Paul Oleksiuk, Ellie Rae Dupler, COOLEY LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Judge Kronstadt

_________________________________________________________________________________

Alcon Entertainment v. Tesla, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 2:24-cv-09033 (filed Oct. 21, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [still shot from motion picture]

• Independent motion picture and television studio, the copyright owner of Blade Runner 2049, sues Tesla, Elon Musk, Warner Brothers Discovery, for alleged copyright infringement in allegedly using an AI-generated image depicting a similar scene from the movie after the defendants were denied a license from plaintiff to use a still shot from the movie
• Defendants’ used what model: unclear
• Counts: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement in Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. Against Defendants WBDI, Tesla and Musk, (2) Vicarious Copyright Infringement in Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. Against Defendants WBDI, Tesla and Musk, (3) Contributory Copyright Infringement in Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. Against Defendants WBDI, Tesla and Musk, (4) False Endorsement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) against All Defendants
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Edward Anderson, Regina Yeh, ANDERSON YEH PC
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • A. Louis Dorny, Terry W Ahearn, Krista Marie Carter, TESLA also for Tesla
  • A. Louis Dorny, Terry W Ahearn, Krista Marie Carter, TESLA also for Elon Musk
  • Christopher S. Marchese, John S. Goetz, Kayleigh E. McGlynn, Kristen A. McCallion, Matthew A. Colvin, Vivian C. Cheng, FISH & RICHARDSON PC for Warner Bros. Discovery, Tesla, Elon Musk
• Case assigned to Judge George Wu

__________________________________________________________________________________

delaware: 3 LAWSUITS

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (filed May 6, 2020) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [Westlaw headnotes and case reports] [on appeal to Third Circuit]

• Owner of Westlaw research database alleged AI startup illegally copied Westlaw headnotes to train startup’s AI program.
• ROSS Intelligence model: non-generative AI
• Counts: (1) direct infringement, (2) tortious interference with contract.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
  • Dale M. Cendali, Eric A. Loverro, Joshua L. Simmons, Miranda Means, Yungmoon Chang, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York.
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
  • Warrington Parker, Joachim B. Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher J. Banks, Margaux Poueymirou, Anna Z. Saber, Mark A. Klapow, Lisa Kimmel, Crinesha B. Berry, Emily T. Kuwahara, Keith J. Harrison, Ryan Seewald, Jordan Ludwig, CROWELL & MORING LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation)
  • Judge Bibas’s decision rejecting summary judgment and analysis of fair use in light of Andy Warhold Foundation v. Goldsmith and Google v. Oracle decisions
  • Trial on the copyright issues is now set to begin on May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Vacker v. ElevenLabs, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:20-cv-00987 (filed Aug. 30, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [voice actor recordings] [SETTLED]

• Voice actors Karissa Vacker, Mark Boyett, Brian (BV) Larson, Vaughn Heppner, Iron Tower Press, Inc. sue for use of their voices to train AI
• ElevenLabs’ AI model: multilingual text-to-speech
• Counts: (1) Invasion of Privacy, through the Misappropriation of Vacker’s Likeness and Right of Publicity, under Texas Common Law, (2) Unjust Enrichment under Texas Law, (3) Misappropriation of Boyett’s Likeness and Publicity Rights Under New York Civil Rights Law § 51, (4) Violation of DMCA Anticircumvention Provisions, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1203, Violation of DMCA § 1201(a)(2), Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (The Author/Publisher Plaintiffs).
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP
  • Michael C. Wilson, Charles-Theodore Zerner, Abigail R. Karol, MUNICK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Brian P. Egan, Lucinda C. Cucuzzella, MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL for ElevenLabs
  • Dori Hanswirth, Theresa M. House, ARNOLD & PORTER for ElevenLabs
• Case assigned to Judge Richard Andrews

__________________________________________________________________________________

Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, (filed Aug. 30, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] [TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE STEIN IN MDL LITIGATION]

• Company producing 45 diverse digital media publications and internet brands, including IGN, Mashable, CNET, ZDNET, PCMag, Lifehacker, BabyCenter, and Everyday Health sues OpenAI for a host of claims including copyright infringement, DMCA 1202(b)(1), (b)(3), removal of CMI claims, and trademark dilution.
• OpenAI’s model: LLM
• Counts: (1) Copyright infringement in AI training, (2) Copyright infringement in AI outputs, (3) Contributory copyright infringement, (4) Common law unjust enrichment, (5) DMCA circumvention 1201(A)(1), (6) DMCA CMI Removal, 1202(B)(1), (7) DMCA CMI Distribution with CMI removed, 1202(B)(3), (8) Trademark Dilution, Lanham Act, (9) Delaware State law dilution.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Kristen Healey Cramer, Noelle B. Torrice, BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
  • Lacy H. (“Lance”) Koonce, III, Matthew Leish, Gili Karev, Mariella Salazar, Clara Cassan, KLARIS LAW PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Many: see here.
• Case assigned to Chief Judge Colm Connolly

__________________________________________________________________________________

district of Massachusetts: 2 LAWSUIT

UMG Recordings v. Suno, in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, 1:24-cv-11611 (filed Jun. 24, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [sound recordings] [Warner Music and Suno settled; UMG Recordings and Sony Music remain]

• Musics labels sue Suno, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Suno AI model: text-to-music model (Bark and Chirp)
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement post-1972 sound recordings, (2) Direct infringement pre-1972 sound recordings
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Moez M. Kaba, Robert Klieger, Mariah N. Rivera, Alexander R. Perry, Robert N. Klieger, HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
  • Daniel J. Cloherty, Alexandra Arnold, CLOHERTY & STEINBERG LLP
• Defendant’s attorneys: Andrew Gass, Sarang Damle, Brittany Lovejoy, Nathan Taylor, Steve Feldman, Shlomo Fellig, LATHAM & WATKINS for Suno
• Case assigned to Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV

Justice v. Suno, in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, 1:25-cv-05026 (filed Jun. 16, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Country musician Anthony Justice sues Udio, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI and outputs of music generator
• Suno’s AI model: text-to-music model (Bark and Chirp)
• Counts: (1) Direct infringement in copying for training and outputs, (2) Direct infringement in making derivative works
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • Michael V. Glennon, BRODY, HARDOON, PERKINS & KESTEN, LLP
  • Jarrett L. Ellzey, Leigh Montgomery, EKSM LLP
  • Krystle Delgado, DELGADO ENTERTAINMENT LAW, PLLC
• Defendant’s attorneys:
  • Andrew Gass, Joseph Wetzel, Brittany Lovejoy, Grace McLaughlin, Shlomo Fellig, LATHAM & WATKINS
• Case assigned to Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV

__________________________________________________________________________________

Northern District of illinois = 2 cases

Woulard v. Suno, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois, 1:25-cv-12684 (filed Nov. 24, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [musical works and sound recordings]

• Independent music artists Hamza Jilani, Stan Burjek, Maatkara Wilson, Magnus Fiennes, Attack the Sound LLC, Arjun Singh, David Woulard, James Burjek, Michael Mell, Berk Ergoz sue Suno, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Suno AI model: text-to-music model
• Counts:
  • Direct Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement (Distribution of Copyrighted Recordings, 17 U.S.C. §106(3))
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Previously-Unregistered Recordings, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Musical-Composition Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Musical-Composition Expression (Non- Lyric), 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information, 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)
  • Circumvention of Access Controls, DMCA § 1201
  • False Copyright Management Information (DMCA § 1202(a))
  • Contributory Copyright Infringement, Sound Recordings and Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Sound Recordings and Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), 765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (Injunctive Relief)
  • Unjust Enrichment (Illinois Common Law)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ross Kimbarovsky, Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Matthew Topic, Aaron Tucek, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendant’s attorneys: Gary Feinerman, Andrew Gass, Brittany Lovejoy, Joseph Wetzel, LATHAM & WATKINS for Suno
• Case assigned to Judge Andrea R. Wood

Woulard v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois, 1:25-cv-12613 (filed Nov. 11, 2025) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [musical works and sound recordings]

• Independent music artists Hamza Jilani, Stan Burjek, Maatkara Wilson, Magnus Fiennes, Attack the Sound LLC, Arjun Singh, David Woulard, James Burjek, Michael Mell, Berk Ergoz sue Uncharted Labs d/b/a Udio, a music generator, for alleged copyright infringement in training AI
• Suno AI model: text-to-music model
• Counts:
  • Direct Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement (Distribution of Copyrighted Recordings, 17 U.S.C. §106(3))
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Previously-Unregistered Recordings, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Musical-Composition Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
  • Direct Copyright Infringement of Musical-Composition Expression (Non- Lyric), 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information, 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)
  • Circumvention of Access Controls, DMCA § 1201
  • False Copyright Management Information (DMCA § 1202(a))
  • Contributory Copyright Infringement, Sound Recordings and Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Sound Recordings and Lyrics, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), 765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.
  • Violation of Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (Injunctive Relief)
  • Unjust Enrichment (Illinois Common Law)
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ross Kimbarovsky, Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Matthew Topic, Aaron Tucek, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Sara L. Ellis

__________________________________________________________________________________

District of Colorado = 1 case

Pierce v. Photobucket, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, 1:24-cv-03432 (filed Dec. 11, 2024) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [user photographs]

• Photographers sue Photobucket, a photograph sharing platform, for alleged plans to sell user photographs for biometric uses and training of AI
• Defendant licenses photographs to train unspecified AI models
• Counts: (1) Violation of State Privacy Law Including 740 ILCS 14/10 (b, c, d & e) (BIPA), Va. Code § 8.01-40(A), Va. Code § 18.2-152.1, et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) via Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, and State Common Law Privacy and Publicity Protections Nationwide Photobucket User Class Against Photobucket (Failure to obtain informed consent from Photobucket users prior to capturing, collecting, storing, licensing, and using biometric information);
• (2) Violation of State Privacy Law Including 740 ILCS 14/10 (b, c, d & e), Va. Code § 8.01-40(A), Va. CODE § 18.2-152.1, et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) via Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, and State Common Law and Constitutional Privacy and Publicity Protections Nationwide Photobucket User Class Against Photobucket (Capturing, collecting, storing, licensing, using and profiting from biometric information without informed consent of those appearing in photographs);
• (3) Violation of State Privacy Law Including 740 ILCS 14/10 (a, b, &c), Va. Code § 8.01-40(A), Va. Code § 18.2-152.1, et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) via Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, and State Common Law Privacy and Publicity Protections Nationwide Class Against Unknown Defendants Nationwide Class Against Unknown Defendants (Capturing, obtaining, storing, licensing, using and profiting from biometric information without informed consent of those appearing in photographs);
• (4) Violation of State Deceptive Practices Law Including C.R.S. 6-1-113, 815 ILCS 505/2, Va. Code 59.1-200, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, NY Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and other State UDAP Statutes Photobucket User Class Against Defendant Photobucket Photobucket User Class Against Defendant Photobucket (Misleading and deceptive acts, practices, and omissions);
• (5) Breach of Contract Nationwide Class Against Defendant Photobucket;
• (6) Conversion Nationwide Photobucket User Class Against Unknown Defendants;
• (7) Unjust Enrichment All Classes Against Photobucket;
• (8) Unjust Enrichment All Classes against Unknown Defendants;
• (9) Civil Conspiracy All Classes Against All Defendants;
• (10) Violation of [DMCA CMI] 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1) by Defendants Photobucket User Class Against All DefendantS
• (11) Violation of [DMCA CMI] 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(3) by Photobucket Photobucket User Class Against Photobucket
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Daniel Twetten, Jonathan Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Tom Hanson, Aaron Tucek, Isaac Green, LOEVY & LOEVY
• Defendant’s attorneys: James Beard, Jonathan Berschadsky, Rachel Scobie, MERCHANT & GOULD
• Case assigned to Chief Judge Philip Brimmer

__________________________________________________________________________________

District of MONTANA = 1 case

James v. Snowflake Inc., in the U.S. District Court for Montana, 2:25-cv-00108 (filed Nov. 21, 2025) (proposed class action) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [books]

• Author of books Darius H. Jones sues Snowflake for allegedly using his books to train AI models acquired from shadow libraries including Books3 and RedPajama
• Snowflake LLMs
• Counts: (1) Direct copyright infringement
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys:
  • John Heenan, HEENAN & COOK PLLC
  • Myles McGuire, David L. Gerbie, Jordan R. Frysinger, MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
• Defendant’s attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to: Chief Judge Brian Morris

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rest of World

Updated World Map of All Copyright Suits v. AI co. (Sept. 12, 2025) 74 total

Copyright lawsuits in Canada (10)

CanLII v. Caseway AI (summary)

Toronto Star Newspapers v. OpenAI in Ontario Superior Court of Justice (summary)

Gagne v. Stability AI in Federal Court

MacKinnon v. Meta in Supreme Court of B.C.

MacKinnon v. Anthropic in Supreme Court of B.C.

MacKinnon v. Databricks in Supreme Court of B.C.

MacKinnon v. NVIDIA in Supreme Court of B.C.

Robillard v. Meta in Quebec Superior Court

Robillard v. OpenAI in Quebec Superior Court

Clare v. Meta in Federal Court

Copyright lawsuits in Brazil (1)

Fo Indian Music Industry (IMI) in Ct. of First Instance

Copyright lawsuits in UK (1)

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., in the High Court of Justice in London (Chancery Division), (filed 1/16/23), No. IL-2023-000007.

Copyright lawsuits in EU Court of Justice (1)

Like Co. v. Google in EU Court of Justice

Copyright lawsuits in Netherlands (1)

DPG Media v. HowardsHome in Amsterdam Dist. Court

Copyright lawsuits in France (1)

National Publishing Union v. Meta. National Publishing Union (SNE), the National Union of Authors and Composers (SNAC), and the Society of Men of Letters (SGDL) filed a copyright lawsuit in a Paris court against Meta.

Copyright lawsuits in Germany (3)

GEMA v. OpenAI in Munich Regional Court (summary)

GEMA v. Suno in Munich Regional Court

Kneschke v. LAION in Hamburg Regional Court (summary)

Copyright lawsuits in Japan (2)

Yomiuri Shinbun v. Perplexity in Tokyo District Court

Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun v. Perplexity in Tokyo District Court

Copyright lawsuits in South Korea (1)

Korean Broad. Assn. v. Naver in Seoul Central Dist. Court

Copyright lawsuits in China (2)

Shanghai Character License Administrative Co. v. TAB in Guangzhou Internet Court

Shanghai Cultural Dev. v. Intell. Tech. Co. in Hangzhou Internet Court

Copyright lawsuits in India (1)

Asian News International (ANI) v. OpenAI in New Delhi court (summary) Intervenors:
Fed. Indian Pub. (FIP)
Digital News Publishers Assn (DNPA)
Fo Indian Music Industry (IMI)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Antitrust suits in US = 2 (Google)

Penske Media v. Google, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, (filed Sept. 12, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Media company owning Rolling Stone and other publications sues Google for antitrust violations in how it couples Google search crawling with allowing website exposure to Google AI mode
• Plaintiffs’ lawyers: Ian Crosby, Davida Brook, Y. Gloria Park, Halley Josephs, Thomas Boardman, Geng Chen, SUSMAN GODREY L.L.P.
• Defendant’s lawyers: TBA

Chegg, Inc. v. Google, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 3:24-cv-01190 (filed Feb. 24, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Educational instruction company sues Google for antitrust violations in how it couples Google search crawling with allowing website exposure to Google AI mode
• Plaintiffs’ lawyers: Ian Crosby, Davida Brook, Y. Gloria Park, Halley Josephs, Thomas Boardman, SUSMAN GODREY L.L.P.
• Defendant’s lawyers: Sonal Mehta, Chris Johnstone, David Gringer, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE ND DORR LLP

__________________________________________________________________________________

State law claims v. Scraping in US = 1

Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic, PBC, in the Superior Court of State of California, (filed June 4, 2025) (proposed class action). [DOCKET after removal] [COMPLAINT]

• Social media company sues AI company for alleged unauthorized scraping of content from social media platform
• Counts: (1) Breach of contract; (2) Unjust enchrichment, plead in the alternative; (3) Trespass to chattels; (4) Tortious interference with contract; (5) Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200
• Plaintiff’s lawyers: John B. Quinn, Morgan W. Tovey, Corey Worcester, Stefan Berthelson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
• Defendant’s lawyers: Ragesh Tangri, Adam Brausa, Whitney O’Byrne, Laura Lively Babashoff, Katherine McNutt, MORRISON & FOERSTER

__________________________________________________________________________________

Privacy lawsuits in US = 3 proposed class actions

A.S. v. OpenAI, Microsoft, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:24-cv-01190 (filed Feb. 27, 2024) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Plaintiffs’ lawyers
  • Kevin R. Ruf, Brian P. Murray, GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
  • Paul C. Whalen, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN

A.T. v. OpenAI LP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-04557 (filed Sept. 5, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Michael F. Ram, John A. Yanchunis, Ryan J. McGee, MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
• Defendants’ attorneys:
  • Emily Johnson, Kathryn E. Cahoy, Ashley Simonsen, Isaac D. Chaput, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP for defendant Microsoft
  • Michael G. Rhodes, Matthew D. Brown, Bethany C. Lobo, Harrison B. Park, Alexandra R. Mayhugh, Maximilian Sladek de la Cal, Barrett J. Anderson, Nachi A. Baru, COOLEY LLP for OpenAI defendants
• Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

J.L. v. Alphabet Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-03440-LB (filed Jul. 11, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [*also involves copyright claims as noted above]

• Case assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart, Tiara Avaness, Valter Malkhasyan, Tracey Cowan, Timothy K. Giordano of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: David H. Kramer, WILSON SONSINI for Alphabet, Google DeepMind, and Google LLC; Eric Preston Tuttle, Maura Lea Rees, WILSON SONSINI for Google LLC

P.M. v. OpenAI LP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:23-cv-03199-JCS (filed Jun. 28, 2023) (proposed class action). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] *VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED BY PLAINTIFFS ON Sept. 15, 2023

• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart, Tiara Avaness, Valter Malkhasyan, Tracey Cowan, Timothy K. Giordano of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.
• Case assigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson

Elon Musk v. Sam Altman, OpenAI

Elon Musk v. Sam Altman, in the Northern District of California, 4:24-cv-04722 (filed Aug. 27, 2024) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Elon Musk alleges various state law claims against Sam Altman and OpenAI
• Plaintiff’s attorneys: Marc Toberoff, Jaymie Parkkinen, TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: TBA
• Case assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Elon Musk v. Sam Altman, OpenAI, in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Francisco, CGC-24-612746 (filed Feb. 29, 2024). [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT] [*VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED]

• Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Morgan Chu, Alan Heinrich, Iian Jablon, Justin Koo, Henry White, IRELL & MANELLA LLP

Defamation lawsuits in US = 1

Mark Walters v. OpenAI, LLC, in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia (filed June 5, 2023) [DOCKET] [COMPLAINT]

• Syndicated radio talk show host alleges ChatGPT generated false and defamatory information about him in response to a query by a ChatGPT user.
• Plaintiff’s attorney: John R. Monroe, John Monroe Law, P.C.
• Defendants’ attorneys: Ashley Allen Carr, Brendan Gerard Krasinski, Daniel Lee Tobey, Ilana H. Eisenstein, Marie Bussey-Garza, Peter Karanjia, DLA PIPER LLP
• Case assigned to Judge Michael Lawrence Brown

__________________________________________________________________________________

Download a PDF of this list.