Revision Date: September 15, 2025

Here is a round-up of AI court cases and rulings currently pending, in the news, or deemed significant (by me), listed here roughly in chronological order of the first case initiation in each section

This post is PART FOUR of FIVE

Table of Contents (215 cases total)

PART ONE:

. . .What's new?

.1. AI physical harm and liability cases (23 cases total)

. . .A. Tesla "Autopilot" vehicle fatal crash cases (13 cases)

. . .B. Tesla "Autopilot" vehicle non-fatal crash cases (7 cases)

. . .C. AI teen suicide cases (2 cases)

. . .D. AI child harm case (1 case)

2. Cases requesting and rulings refusing proprietary rights in items created by or with AI (13 cases)

3. AI biometrics and facial recognition cases (24 cases)

PART TWO:

4. Federal AI algorithmic housing discrimination cases (10 cases)

5. AI patent infringement cases and rulings (8 cases)

AI wiretapping cases (3 cases)
AI corporate cases (15 cases)

PART THREE:

8. Federal AI copyright cases that have had significant rulings (9 cases)

9. Federal AI copyright cases - potentially class action (38 cases total)

. . .A. Text scraping - consolidated OpenAI cases (14 cases)

. . .B. Text scraping - other cases (11 cases)

. . .C. Graphic images (3 cases)

. . .D. Sound recordings (2 cases)

. . .E. Video (3 cases)

. . .F. Computer source code (3 cases)

. . .G. Multimodal (2 cases)

. . .H. Notes

PART FOUR:

10. Data privacy, right of publicity, persona, personal likeness cases (11 cases)

11. AI algorithmic hiring discrimination class action case (1 case)

12. AI defamation cases (2 cases)

13. Freedom of speech cases (6 cases)

California anti-election-deepfake AI law challenge (4 cases)

15. Alcon Entertainment / Tesla “Blade Runner 2049 Cybertruck” copyright / trademark case (1 case)

16. University expulsion for alleged AI use cases (2 cases)

AI antitrust (monopoly) cases (4 cases total)

18. Hawaiian OpenAI anti-deployment injunction case (1 case)

19. Reddit / Anthropic text scraping state case (1 case)

20. Movie studios / Midjourney character image AI service copyright cases (2 cases)

21. Governmental AI use FOIA request enforcement case (1 case)

PART FIVE:

22. Cases outside the United States (22 cases)

23. Old, dismissed, pro se, or less important cases (13 cases)

24. Notes

. Acknowledgements

Jump back to Part One:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1mtcjck

Jump back to Part Two:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1mtcnn3

Jump back to Part Three:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1mtcr6a

Jump to Part Five:

https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1ni8m4s

10. Data privacy, right of publicity, persona, personal likeness cases (10 cases total)

A. Reface right of publicity case (1 case)

Case Name: Young v. NeoCortext, Inc.

Case Number: 2:23-cv-02496

Filed: April 3, 2023

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Presiding Judge: Wesley L. Hsu; Magistrate Judge: Pedro V. Castillo

Main claim type and allegation: Right of publicity infringement; plaintiff alleges defendant’s AI system allows users to insert their face over a celebrity’s face in images or short videos of the celebrity, without permission or compensation of the celebrity

On September 5, 2023, Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, and defendant appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit on non-AI grounds. The case was stayed (paused) until December 2024 when the appeals court confirmed no dismissal was warranted and the case could proceed. No filings have been made in the case since then

B. Personal text and data scraping cases (5 cases total)

Case Name: P.M., et al. v. OpenAI LP, et al. (voluntarily dismissed) (1 case)

Case Number: 3:23-cv-03199

Filed: June 28, 2023

Dismissed: September 15, 2023

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Other major defendant: Microsoft Corp.

Main claim type and allegation: Invasion of privacy and fraud; plaintiff users of defendant’s AI product alleged violation of privacy from that product scraping plaintiffs’ private personal data without permission or compensation and retaining it or feeding it to other defendant, also miscellaneous other similar statutory claims

Voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on September 15, 2023

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: A.T.., et al. v. OpenAI, LP, et al. (also known as Cousart, et al. v. OpenAI, LP, et al.) (dismissed on motion ) (1 case)

Case Number: 3:23-cv-04557-VC

Filed: September 5, 2023; Dismissed: May 24, 2024

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)

Other major defendant: Microsoft Corp.

Related to and complaint paralleling complaint in A.S.. v. OpenAI, LP, et al. case just below

On May 24, 2024, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiff’s case was dismissed in its entirety by District Court Judge Vince Chhabria (the same judge as in the Kadrey case above), who took strong exception to the plaintiffs’ complaint as “not only excessive in length, but also contain[ing] swaths of unnecessary and distracting allegations making it nearly impossible to determine the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ legal claims.” Leave to amend the complaint was granted, but plaintiffs chose not to do so

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: A.S. v. OpenAI, LP, et al. (voluntarily dismissed) (1 case)

Case Number: 3:24-cv-01190-VC

Filed: February 27, 2024; Dismissed: May 30, 2024

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)

Other major defendant: Microsoft Corp.

Related to and complaint paralleling complaint in A.T., et al. v. OpenAI, LP, et al. case just above; reassigned to District Court Judge Vince Chhabria as part of the relation

Case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs a few days after Judge Chhabria ruled to dismiss the A.T., et al. v. OpenAI, LP, et al. case just above

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc. (1 case)

Case Number: 5:25-cv-06911-EKL

Filed: August 15, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)

Presiding Judge: Eumi K. Lee; Magistrate Judge: Virginia K. Demarchi

Main claim type and allegation: Violation of federal and California state privacy statutes; plaintiff alleges defendant’s AI product “Otter Notetaker” scrapes transcribed meeting discussions and uses them to train its AI system without notifying or obtaining permission from enrolled users and without compensation

Plaintiff proposes the case proceed as a class action

Note: This case is similar to the Winston case listed just below, and the court is considering whether to group them together

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Winston v. Otter.ai, Inc. (1 case)

Case Number: 5:25-cv-07712-VKD

Filed: September 10, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)

Presiding Judge: Virginia K. Demarchi (magistrate judge presiding unless a party declines)

Main claim type and allegation: Violation of federal and multiple states’ privacy statutes; plaintiff alleges defendant’s AI product “Otter Notetaker” scrapes transcribed meeting discussions and uses them, including their biometric voice data, to train its AI system without notifying or obtaining permission from enrolled users and without compensation

Plaintiff proposes the case proceed as a class action

Note: This case is similar to the Brewer case listed just above, and the court is considering whether to group them together

C. George Carlin persona AI performance injunction judgment (1 case)

Case Name: Main Sequence, Ltd., et al. v. Dudesy, LLC, et al. (settled and consent judgment entered)

Case Number: 2:24-cv-00711

Filed: January 25, 2024

Consent judgment entered: June 18, 2024

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Main claim type and allegation: Right of publicity infringement; defendants scraped late comedian George Carlin’s works and likeness and created an AI performance by George Carlin’s persona without plaintiffs’ permission or compensation

Other major plaintiffs: Estate of George Carlin

Other major defendants: Will Sasso

Under the consent judgment and permanent injunction, the AI performance will not be shown anymore

D. Human voice misappropriation cases (2 cases)

Case Name: Lehrman, et al. v. Lovo, Inc.

Case Number: 1:24-cv-03770-JPO

Filed: May 16, 2024

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (New York City)

Presiding Judge: J. Paul Oetken; Magistrate Judge:

Main claim type and allegation: Unfair competition and fraud; plaintiffs allege defendant’s AI text-to-speech service misappropriated and used plaintiffs’ vocal tonalities and characteristics without plaintiffs’ permission or compensation

Note: Plaintiffs are voice-over actors

On July 10, 2025, defendant’s motion to dismiss was partially granted and partially denied, trimming some claims, with the court ruling that vocal characteristics and tonalities are not eligible for copyright protection, but plaintiffs might be able to claim copyright infringement in using plaintiffs’ materials to train the AI product; Citation: (S.D.N.Y. 2025)

Plaintiffs propose the case proceed as a class action

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Vacker, et al. v. ElevenLabs, Inc. (settled)

Case Number: 1:24-cv-00987-RGA

Filed: August 29, 2024

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Delaware

Presiding Judge: Richard G. Andrews; Magistrate Judge:

Main claim type and allegation: Misappropriate of likeness, and violations of Digital Millenium Copyright Act; plaintiffs allege defendant’s AI text-to-speech service misappropriated and used plaintiffs’ vocal tonalities and characteristics without plaintiffs’ permission or compensation

Note: Plaintiffs are voice-over actors and publishers of audiobooks read by those actors

Motion to dismiss was pending

On March 13, 2025, defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York was denied

The parties went to mediation and reached a settlement on August 18, 2025. The case is stayed until a full settlement agreement is drafted and the court can order the case voluntarily dismissed

E. Tony Robbins AI persona chatbot trademark/unfair competition case (1 case)

Case Name: Robbins Research International, Inc., et al. v. InnoLeap AI LLC, et al.

Case Number: 3:25-cv-01637

Filed: June 26, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego)

Presiding Judge: Daniel E. Butcher; Magistrate Judge: Gonzalo P. Curiel

Other major defendants: Mira Muse LLC

Main claim type and allegation: Trademark and unfair competition; the defendants are alleged to have scraped the plaintiff’s copyrighted works to create chatbots having the persona of the plaintiff

F. X (Twitter) intimate images sharing case (1 case)

Case Name: Doe v. X Corp., et al.

Case Number: 3:25-cv-07597-TLT (Case No. 3:25-mc-80266 was improperly filed as a miscellaneous case on September 5, 2025 and was discontinued by the court)

Filed: September 6, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)

Presiding Judge: Trina L. Thompson; Magistrate Judge:

Main claim type and allegation: Federal intimate image statute violation; the plaintiff voluntarily uploaded intimate images to defendant’s “OnlyFans” service; plaintiff alleges he believed they would be available only on a viewing basis to subscribers, and alleges the defendant instead allowed the images to be stored by others and defendant also used the images for the defendant’s own purposes, including training of defendant’s AI system

Plaintiff has asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction, and a hearing has been set for September 30, 2025

Note: This is mostly an intimate images disclosure case; however, it is included here because one of the alleged wrongful uses by the defendant is training of the defendant’s AI system

11. AI algorithmic hiring discrimination class action case (1 case)

Case Name: Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (proceeding as collective action)

Case Number: 3:23-cv-00770-RFL

Filed: February 21, 2023

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland)

Presiding Judge: Rita F. Lin; Magistrate Judge: Laurel D. Beeler

Main claim type and allegation: Employment discrimination; plaintiff alleges the screening algorithms implemented in defendant’s AI screening product that is used by many companies in hiring, discriminated against him on the basis of age, race, and disability

On January 19, 2024, defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted but plaintiff was allowed to file a new complaint; no published citation

On July 12, 2024, defendant’s motion to dismiss was partially granted, partially denied, trimming some claims; Citation: 740 F. Supp. 3d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2024)

On May 16, 2025, preliminary collective certification was granted, which is similar to class certification but requires potential plaintiffs to affirmatively opt in to a collective rather than opt out of a class; Citation: (N.D. Cal. 2025)

The court and parties are in the process of generating a public notice/advertisement to notify potential plaintiffs and allow them to opt in to the plaintiffs’ collective

12. AI defamation cases (2 cases)

Case Name: Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C. (dismissed by motion)

Case Number: 23-A-04860-2

Transferred to federal court: July 14, 2023, Northern District of Georgia No. 1:23-cv-03122

Transferred back from federal court: October 25, 2023

Dismissed on defendant’s summary judgment motion: May 19, 2025

Court Type: State

Court: Georgia Superior Court, Gwinnett County

Presiding Judge: Tracie H. Cason

Main claim type and allegation: Defamation (libel); plaintiff, a media commentator and personality, alleges defendant’s ChatGPT system made available to a journalist a report that falsely identified plaintiff as being accused of embezzling from and defrauding a political group.

On January 11, 2024 the Georgia state court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

On May 19, 2025, the Georgia state court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the report could not be reasonably understood as communicating actual facts, plaintiff as a public figure failed to show “actual malice” on the part of defendant, and plaintiff suffered no actual damages from defendant’s actions through ChatGPT; no published citation

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Starbuck v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (settled and dismissed)

Case Number: N25C-04-283 SKR CCLD

Filed: April 29, 2025

Dismissed: August 8 2025 (approximately)

Court Type: State

Court: Superior Court of Delaware

Main claim type and allegation: Defamation; plaintiff, who is a political media personality, alleged defendant’s AI chatbot falsely identified plaintiff as being present at the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection and had pled guilty to committing crimes

On August 8, 2025 it was announced that the parties had settled and the case was being dismissed

13. Freedom of speech cases (6 cases total)

A. Redirects to other cases already in this list (5 cases)

The following AI cases in this listing have non-trivial aspects relating to free speech:

SEE Kohls v. Bonta, et al. case and consolidated component cases (4 cases) in Section 14 below

SEE Garcia, et al. v. Character Technologies, Inc., et al. case (1 case) in Section 1(C) above

Note: In none of these cases are the litigants asserting that AI devices themselves have free speech rights

Note: These cases are already included in the total case count, and are not being counted again due to being listed here

B. AI Speech Comment Within U.S. Supreme Court Decision (1 case)

Case Name: Moody, et al. v. NetChoice, LLC, et al. (also NetChoice, LLC, et al. v. Paxton)

Case Numbers: 22-277 and 22-555

Appeal granted: September 29, 2023

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. Supreme Court (lower court rulings omitted here)

Moody is not an AI case. However, in her concurring opinion, Justice Amy C. Barrett wondered aloud how using an LLM might affect free speech protections. She noted that an algorithm set up directly by a human to enforce that human’s expressive choices in regulating a website would constitute the same sort of protected expression for purposes of free speech law as if directly performed by the human. She then wondered aloud, however, whether a human using an LLM instead of an algorithm to regulate a website might be considered as having the LLM make the determinations rather than the human making them. She wondered whether this would “attenuate the connection” from a human’s protected expression sufficiently to remove the website’s regulation by LLM from being considered a human’s expressive choice, and therefore not be protected as expressive conduct under free speech law. She concluded, “the way platforms use this sort of technology might have constitutional significance”; Citation: 603 U.S. 707, 745-46, 144 S. Ct. 2383, 2410, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1075 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring)

Normally, a passage like this would be greatly reduced in its significance. First, it occurs in a side “concurring opinion” rather than in the main Court opinion. Second, it does not directly relate to the reasons for reaching the precise decision in that case, and so could be considered as dicta, a judge’s side discussion that usually carries less or even no weight. However, this passage gains back some significance because, first, a U.S. Supreme Court justice said it directly on point to AI issues, and second, Judge Conway in her ruling in the Garcia, et al. v. Character Technologies, Inc., et al. case in Section 1(C) above specifically relied upon this passage in refraining from deciding at that time whether the output of the accused Character A.I. product is “speech” and therefore potentially protectable; Citation: ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (M.D. Fla. 2025)

14. California anti-election-deepfake AI law challenge (4 cases total)

Case Name: Kohls v. Bonta, et al. (judgment enjoining state law) (1 case)

Case Number: 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento)

Filed: September 17, 2024

Judgment Date: August 20, 2025

Presiding Judge: John A. Mendez; Magistrate Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney

CONSOLIDATING FROM U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (2 cases):

X Corp. v. Bonta, et al., No., 2:24-cv-03162, filed November 14, 2024

Rumble Inc., et al. v. Bonta, et al., No., 2:24-cv-03315, filed November 27, 2024

CONSOLIDATING FROM U.S. District Court, Central District of California (1 case):

Babylon Bee, LLC, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 2:24-cv-08377, filed September 30, 2024 (E.D. Cal. transfer Case No. 2:24-cv-02787)

Main claim type and allegation: Constitutional civil rights challenge to state law; plaintiffs allege California’s state statutes restricting AI deepfakes in the election context violate the U.S. Constitution on free speech and other grounds

On August 20, 2025, the court entered final judgment striking down AB 2655, one of the two challenged state laws, which would have required large social media companies to block deceptive AI-generated videos or materials pertaining to an election for a specified time period before and after that election. The law was struck down because conflicting federal law (Communications Decency Act Section 230) “preempts” (essentially overrules) it. The court permanently enjoined (forbid) the State of California from enforcing AB 2655 against Defendants; as a practical matter, this ruling means the law is likely unenforceable against anyone at all; Citation: (E.D. Cal.)

On August 5, 2025, the judge said he would also strike down the other law, AB 2839, which would have prohibited deceptive AI-generated materials related to elections, candidates, or campaigns. This other law is being struck down for the same reason, that conflicting federal law (Communications Decency Act Section 230) preempts (essentially overrules) it; Citation: (E.D. Cal. 2025)

The court did not rule on constitutional/free speech issues

15. Alcon Entertainment / Tesla “Blade Runner 2049 Cybertruck” copyright / trademark case (1 case)

Case Name: Alcon Entertainment, LLC v. Tesla, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 2:24-cv-09033-GW-RAO

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Filed: October 21, 2024

Presiding Judge: George H. Wu; Magistrate Judge: Rozella A. Oliver

Other major defendants: Elon Musk, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.

Main claim type and allegation: Copyright and trademark (false affiliation); plaintiff alleges defendants used visual elements from plaintiff’s movie to depict and market Tesla’s cybertruck

On September 11, 2025, Judge Wu granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint but gave the plaintiff a chance to file a new complaint fixing the problems in plaintiff’s case; Citation: (C.D. Cal. 2025)

16. University expulsion for alleged AI use cases (2 cases)

Case Name: Yang v. Neprash, et al.

Case Number: 0:25-cv-00089-JMB-SGE

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Filed: January 8, 2025

Presiding Judge: Jeffrey M. Bryan; Magistrate Judge: Shannon G. Elkins

Main claim type and allegation: Civil rights violation; plaintiff alleges defendant violated plaintiff’s Due Process rights by wrongly expelling him from his university doctoral studies based on false evidence that he had used ChatGPT to complete a doctoral examination

Plaintiff seeks $4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages

Former major defendant from original complaint: University of Minnesota

On January 10, 2025, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the University from expelling the plaintiff was denied for procedural deficiencies; on February 19, 2025, plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction was stricken for similar deficiencies.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending

Note: Plaintiff is proceeding pro se (without legal counsel)

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Rignol v. Yale University, et al.

Case Number: 3:25-cv-00159

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Filed: February 3, 2025

Presiding Judge: Sarah F. Russell; Magistrate Judge: Thomas O.E. Farrish

Main claim type and allegation: Breach of contract and civil rights violation (nationality); plaintiff alleges defendant wrongly expelled him from his MBA studies at the Yale School of Management based on false evidence he had used AI to complete an examination

On May 5, 2025, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prevent the University from expelling the plaintiff was denied

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending

17. AI antitrust (monopoly) cases (4 cases total)

Case Name: Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al.

Case Number: 1:25-cv-00543-APM

Filed: February 24, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Presiding Judge: Amit P. Mehta; Magistrate Judge:

Other major defendants: Alphabet Inc.

Main claim type and allegation: Antitrust violations and unjust enrichment; the plaintiff alleges the defendants coerce publishers like the plaintiff, as a precondition to those publishers receiving Google search traffic referrals, to supply those publishers’ content to the defendants for use in training Google AI products and producing competing Google RAG products

Defendants have requested the case be dismissed

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: X Corp., et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.

Case Number: 4:25-cv-00914

Filed: August 25, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth)

Presiding Judge: Mark T. Pittman (magistrate judge presiding unless a party declines)

Other major defendants: OpenAI, Inc.

Main claim type and allegation: Antitrust violations and unfair competition; the plaintiff alleges the defendants colluded to open the iPhone only to the OpenAI system and block plaintiff’s AI products from the iPhone

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Eliza Labs, Inc., et al. v. X Corporation

Case Number: 3:25-cv-07243-TSH

Filed: August 27, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)

Presiding Judge: Thomas S. Hixon (but being reassigned; magistrate judge was presiding but a party declined)

Main claim type and allegation: Antitrust violations and unfair competition; the plaintiff alleges the defendant wrongfully removed and then prevented plaintiff’s AI products from appearing on defendant’s X (formerly Twitter) platform

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Penske Media Corporation, et al. v. Google LLC, et al.

Case Number: 1:25-cv-03192

Filed: September 12, 2025

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Presiding Judge: ; Magistrate Judge:

Other major plaintiffs: Artforum Media, LLC, Art Media LLC, Billboard Media, LLC, Deadline Hollywood, LLC, Fairchild Publishing, LLC, Gold Derby Media, LLC, The Hollywood Reporter, LLC, Indiewire Media, LLC, Rolling Stone LLC, SheMedia, LLC, Sourcing Journal Media, LLC, Sportico Media, LLC, Variety Media, LLC, and Vibe Media Publishing, LLC

Other major defendants: Alphabet Inc.

Main claim type and allegation: Antitrust violations and unjust enrichment; the plaintiffs allege the defendants coerce publishers like plaintiffs, as a precondition to those publishers receiving Google search traffic referrals, to supply those publishers’ content to the defendants for use in training Google AI products and producing competing Google RAG products

18. Hawaiian AI anti-deployment injunction case (1 case)

Case Name: Hunt v. OpenAI, Inc.

Case Number: 1:25-cv-00191-JAO-KJM

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii

Filed: May 6, 2025

Presiding Judge: Jill A. Otake; Magistrate Judge: Kenneth J. Mansfield

Main claim type and allegation: Product liability; plaintiff seeks to enjoin (stop) defendant’s deployment of OpenAI products in Hawaii until sufficient AI safety measures are put in place

Motion to dismiss is pending

Note: The plaintiff, who is a lawyer, is proceeding without legal counsel

19. Reddit / Anthropic text scraping state case (1 case)

Case Name: Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic, PBC

Case Number: CGC-25-625892

Court Type: State

Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

Filed: June 4, 2025

Presiding Judge: Susan Y. Illston; Magistrate Judge:

Main claim type and allegation: Unfair Competition; defendant's chatbot system alleged to have "scraped" plaintiff's Internet discussion-board data product without plaintiff’s permission or compensation

Note: The claim type is "unfair competition" rather than copyright, likely because copyright belongs to federal law and would have required bringing the case in federal court instead of state court

Plaintiff Reddit has asked the federal court to move the case back to state court, and a hearing on that request will be held on October 10, 2025

20. Movie studios / Midjourney character image AI service copyright cases (2 cases)

Case Name: Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc.

Case Number: 2:25-cv-05275

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Filed: June 11, 2025

Presiding Judge: John A. Kronstadt; Magistrate Judge: A. Joel Richlin

Other major plaintiffs: Marvel Characters, Inc., LucasFilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, DreamWorks Animation L.L.C.

Main claim type and allegation: Copyright; defendant’s AI service alleged to allow users to generate graphical images of plaintiffs’ copyrighted characters without plaintiffs’ permission or compensation

~~~~~~~~~

Case Name: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc.

Case Number: 2:25-cv-08376

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Filed: September 4, 2025

Presiding Judge: ; Magistrate Judge:

Other major plaintiffs: DC Comics, Turner Entertainment Co., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., The Cartoon Network

21. Governmental AI use FOIA request enforcement case (1 case)

Case Name: Democracy Forward Foundation. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

Case Number: 1:25-cv-02020

Court Type: Federal

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Filed: June 27, 2025

Presiding Judge: Jia M. Cobb; Magistrate Judge:

Other major defendants: U.S. Department of State

Main claim type and allegation: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request enforcement; plaintiff sent FOIA requests to defendant federal government agencies requesting records pertaining to those agencies’ use of AI systems, including generative AI and chatbots; plaintiff alleges defendants failed to produce records or otherwise meaningfully respond to those requests

Continue to Part Five:

https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1ni8m4s

Acknowledgements:

Kudos to CourtListener[dot]com for the federal court dockets and documents

Kudos to Mishcon de Reya LLP and its page at www[dot]mishcon[dot]com/generative-ai-intellectual-property-cases-and-policy-tracker for certain international and obscure cases

Kudos to CMS Legal Services EEIG and its page at cms[dot]law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker for certain international cases

Kudos to Tech Policy Press and its page at www[dot]techpolicy[dot]press/ai-lawsuits-worth-watching-a-curated-guide for certain “social policy” cases

Live page links are not included just above because live links can freak out some subs

P.S.: Wombat!

This gives you a catchy, uncommon mnemonic keyword for referring back to this post. Of course you still have to remember “wombat.”

submitted by /u/Apprehensive_Sky1950
[link] [comments]