Courts

Subscribe to Courts via RSS

On October 22, 2025, Reddit, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Perplexity AI, Inc. and associated data-scraping firms, alleging violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions (17 U.S.C. §1201), along with related claims for unjust enrichment and unfair competition. Building on the strategy advanced in its earlier Anthropic suit, Reddit frames the dispute not as a garden-variety copyright infringement case but as a §1201 anti-circumvention suit targeting what it calls “industrial-scale” evasion of technical controls used to harvest Reddit content through Google’s search results. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly masked identities, rotated IP addresses, and bypassed access controls to scrape billions of Google search-engine results pages (“SERPs”) containing Reddit URLs, text, images, and videos—data that Reddit claims Perplexity subsequently incorporated into its “answer engine.”Continue Reading Anti-Circumvention: Reddit’s Case Against Perplexity

The use of AI recording tools has become prevalent. Companies’ policies addressing the legal issues with these tools is not yet as prevalent. If your company’s AI policy does not address these issues, it needs to be updated. A recently filed class action stems from one fact scenario where legal issues may arise. It is not the first suit against AI recording and it will not be the last. The lawsuit claims violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq based on use of a third party service that records and perform AI analysis on calls between a dental company and its patients. Details of this lawsuit are provided below. However, it is important to understand that if your company or your employees use AI recording tools or notetakers, you need to ensure that your AI policy covers all of the necessary issues. These issues can include at least: i) managing and documenting notice and consent; ii) dealing with nonconsenting parties participating in a call being recorded; iii) inaccuracies of AI generated transcripts and summaries; iv) AI generated sentiment analysis/emotion detection; v) confidentiality and privilege issues; vi) retention and/or deletion of recordings; vii) vendor diligence on these tools and approval process for specific tools; and viii) knowing the technical features of some tools that can help mitigate risk and others that can create more risk.Continue Reading “Listen Up” if Your AI Policy Does Not Cover AI Recording Issues – Another Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Third Party AI Recording Service

We previously reported on the groundbreaking AI Fair Use ruling in the Thomson Reuters Ross Intelligence case, where the court found that based on the facts of this case fair use was not a defense. Ross Intelligence moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), for certification of the Court’s Order, for interlocutory appeal and for a stay pending that appeal. The Court has now granted that request.Continue Reading Court Grants Interlocutory Appeal on AI Fair Use Issue

Defendant Lovo has moved to dismiss an amended complaint alleging that the voice actor Plaintiffs’ voices were unlawfully cloned by Defendant Lovo’s AI Voice Generator. Plaintiffs allege that Lovo’s CEO stated on a podcast that: “voice cloning refers to a virtual copy of a real person’s voice. Rather than using machine learning to synthesize an original AI voice, voice cloning technology replicates an existing human voice.” Allegedly, in a little over a year, LOVO users have created over seven million voice-overs including many based on narrations allegedly “stolen” from real actors.Continue Reading Lovo “Voices” Opposition to Suit Over “Kitchen-Sink” Approach to Alleged AI Voice Cloning