-
Google aggressively seeks sanctions v. Plaintiffs in AI lawsuit for allegedly shifting alleged class involved again
Read more: Google aggressively seeks sanctions v. Plaintiffs in AI lawsuit for allegedly shifting alleged class involved againGoogle is seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs in the In re Google Generative AI Litigation. Google alleges that the plaintiffs are now belatedly changing their definitions of the class for the potential class action lawsuit, after already once having Judge Lee strike their “fail-safe” class definition. Google says it will seek to strike the class…
-
Judge Lee allows provisional sealing of exhibits for class certification in Google Gen AI Litigation
Read more: Judge Lee allows provisional sealing of exhibits for class certification in Google Gen AI LitigationJudge Lee has granted the parties stipulated proposal to allow the filing of exhibits and briefs provisionally under seal (without individual motions) related to the motion for class certification. Then the parties will file an omnibus motion later to seal. Plaintiffs filed their redacted motion to certify a class action on October 15. Google’s Responses…
-
Plaintiffs file redacted motion to certify class v. Google
Read more: Plaintiffs file redacted motion to certify class v. GoogleThe plaintiffs filed their motion to certify a class against Google. It is heavily redacted. This is the 2d motion to certify a class action among the 52 copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies. The 1st was Bartz v. Anthropic, in which Judge Alsup ultimately certified a class of book authors whose works were in…
-
Judge Lee grants 3 weeks extension to scheduling order for class certification issues
Read more: Judge Lee grants 3 weeks extension to scheduling order for class certification issuesIn re Google Generative AI Litigation, Judge Lee granted a 3 weeks extension to the scheduling order for class certification issues. This extension was less than the 6 weeks sought by plaintiffs, and the same amount Google offered as a “compromise.” Related Stories
-
Google files blistering response to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend scheduling order
Read more: Google files blistering response to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend scheduling orderIn the In re Google Gen. AI Litigation, Google just filed a blistering response to the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the scheduling order yet again. All I know is that Judge Lee will not be happy with one side–or both sides. Related Stories
-
Judge Lee grants plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time for Google’s response to Motion to amend case schedule to allow more time.
Read more: Judge Lee grants plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time for Google’s response to Motion to amend case schedule to allow more time.Judge Lee shortened the time, at plaintiff’s request, for Google to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the case schedule to extend the deadlines. The plaintiffs alleged, in its motion, that Google “(i) failed to provide timely and functional access to the training data remote environment that it selected and controls; (ii) failed to…
-
Judge Lee dismisses some infringement claims by visual creators on some models of Google. Also dismisses vicarious infringement claim v. Alphabet.
Read more: Judge Lee dismisses some infringement claims by visual creators on some models of Google. Also dismisses vicarious infringement claim v. Alphabet.Judge Eumi Lee granted in part Google’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint of the visual artists or content creators in In re Google Generative AI Litigation. Judge Lee allowed the infringement claims related to Google’s models: The Court concludes that Plaintiffs plausibly allege copyright infringement as to the models: PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard,…
-
Amended scheduling order in In re Google Gen AI Litigation
Read more: Amended scheduling order in In re Google Gen AI LitigationJudge Lee approved the stipulated amended scheduling order, with a slight change to the last day to hear the summary judgment motions (Sept. 11, 2026). The change to the schedule came after Judge Lee rebuked especially the plaintiffs’ attorney for failing to conduct discovery in a timely manner on the class certification. This case won’t…
-
Magistrate Judge van Keulen to hold discovery hearing on June 18
Read more: Magistrate Judge van Keulen to hold discovery hearing on June 18Discovery Hearing set for 6/18/2025 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 6/10/2025. Relevant motions: Docket Item No. 140, 141, 143, 144, 145.