Reference
The Docket
The litigation and regulation on this record, case by case: the latest thing that happened, when, and the item it happened in. Courts and judges appear only as the record states them. The fuller running tally on this beat is kept by Chat GPT Is Eating the World, which is the source of most of these items; this page is the dated-ruling view of what the wire has published, and nothing it has not.
Dates ahead
- — European Commission — The European Commission's copyright consultation, including its generative-AI section, closes
- — Bartz v. Anthropic — First class payout, $2,203.56 per work, due on or before this date
- — Movement for an Open Web, to the European Commission and the UK Competition and Markets Authority — Meta's revised business terms, which publishers say let it take site content for AI, take effect (delayed from Oct. 30)
- — Cambronne v. Anthropic — Deadline for requests in Cambronne v. Anthropic to decide the case without a trial (non-expert summary judgment motions)
Courts
| Case | Court | Latest on the record | Next | Items |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bartz v. Anthropic Authors' class action — one suit on behalf of a whole group — over books used to train Claude; settled | not stated in the record; the appeal over lawyers' fees is to the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court |
| First class payout, $2,203.56 per work, due on or before this date | |
| Gilbert v. Anthropic Author Daniel Gilbert, suing without a lawyer (pro se) after leaving (opting out of) the Bartz class, over his book Hacking World of Warcraft | not stated in the record |
| — | |
| Shakespeare v. Anthropic Authors over training data; amended to name Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann personally | federal court in the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.), Judge Pitts |
| — | |
| Cambronne v. Anthropic Authors and publishers who left (opted out of) the Bartz settlement group, suing Anthropic on their own over book piracy | Judge Pitts; court not stated in the record |
| Deadline for requests in Cambronne v. Anthropic to decide the case without a trial (non-expert summary judgment motions) | |
| Concord Music Group v. Anthropic Music publishers over Claude's training on copyrighted song lyrics; the first of the music-publisher suits against Anthropic, later joined on this record by Sony Music Publishing and BMG | federal court in San Jose, Judge Eumi Lee |
| — | |
| Sony Music Publishing v. Anthropic Music publisher over training data: downloading by torrent, claims that Amodei and Mann helped others infringe (contributory infringement), and removal of CMI — the ownership and licensing tags on a work | federal court in the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.); expected before Judge Eumi Lee, who has the Concord and BMG suits |
| — | |
| Anthropic v. U.S. Department of War Anthropic's First Amendment challenge to its designation as a supply-chain risk | Judge Rita Lin |
| — | |
| Google v. SerpApi Claims under the law against breaking technical locks (DMCA anti-circumvention) against a search-results scraper | federal court in the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.), Chief Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers |
| — | |
| Reddit v. Perplexity and SerpApi Claims under the law against breaking technical locks (DMCA anti-circumvention) over scraping of Reddit content | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer |
| — | |
| Amazon v. Perplexity Claims under the federal anti-hacking law (the CFAA) over Perplexity's Comet browser, an AI agent acting for its user on Amazon.com | Ninth Circuit federal appeals court (the Aug. 5 ruling); the trial court is not stated in the record |
| — | |
| CNN v. Perplexity Copyright claims over training inputs and outputs | not stated in the record |
| — | |
| In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation Consolidated publisher and author suits against OpenAI and Microsoft — the New York Times, Daily News, Ziff Davis and others | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Sidney Stein |
| — | |
| Seattle Times and Newsday v. OpenAI and Microsoft Copyright, DMCA and — a first on this record — trademark dilution under federal trademark law (the Lanham Act), over made-up (hallucinated) content wrongly credited to the papers | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), filed Sept. 4; to join the combined federal case against OpenAI (the OpenAI MDL) |
| — | |
| Times Publishing Co. (Tampa Bay Times) v. OpenAI and Microsoft The Tampa Bay Times' publisher over copyright, responsibility for someone else's infringement (vicarious infringement), and removal under the DMCA of CMI — the ownership and licensing tags on a work | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), filed Sept. 16; likely to go to Judge Stein and join the combined federal case against OpenAI (the OpenAI MDL) |
| — | |
| USA Today Co. v. OpenAI USA Today Co. and 13 affiliated newspapers over GPT training on their articles: copyright, vicarious infringement (responsibility for someone else's infringement), and a DMCA claim over stripped authorship credits | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), filed Oct. 8; the papers asked to join the combined federal case against OpenAI (the OpenAI MDL) |
| — | |
| Sullivan et al. v. OpenAI Textbook authors over training data | federal court in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), filed Aug. 14 |
| — | |
| wikiHow v. OpenAI Copyright over training inputs and query responses, vicarious infringement (responsibility for someone else's infringement), and removal under the DMCA of CMI — the ownership and licensing tags on a work | not stated in the record |
| — | |
| In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation Combined (consolidated) claims over training Gemini; publishers Cengage and Hachette withdrew a request to join the case (a motion to intervene) | Judge Eumi Lee |
| — | |
| Penske Media v. Google Antitrust (competition law): Google's search dominance used to obtain publisher content for AI Overviews without compensation | Judge Amit Mehta |
| — | |
| United States v. Google (search remedy appeal) Appeal of the six-year remedy — the fix the court ordered — that Judge Mehta imposed, built on data sharing and syndication | D.C. Circuit federal appeals court |
| — | |
| In re Mosaic LLM Litigation (Databricks) Five authors over training MPT and DBRX on their books | federal court in the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles Breyer |
| — | |
| Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence One of the earliest fair-use rulings against an AI company, now on appeal | Third Circuit federal appeals court |
| — | |
| Doe 1 v. GitHub (No. 24-7700) Coders' claim that GitHub's Copilot coding assistant broke the DMCA by stripping CMI — the ownership and licensing tags on code — when it wrote new code | Ninth Circuit federal appeals court |
| — | |
| Gray v. Nadella et al. Shareholder derivative suit — a suit by shareholders against the board on the company's behalf — over copyright-infringement risk at Microsoft; the third of its kind | federal court in the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.), filed Sept. 9; expected to be combined before Judge Rothstein with the Anderson and Gusinsky Trust suits |
| — | |
| American Federation of Musicians v. Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group Union claims that the labels licensed recordings to Suno and Udio without paying the new-use fees its contract requires | not stated in the record |
| — |
Regulators and legislatures
| Actor | Action | Date | Next | Items |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Commission | Fined Alphabet €460 million under Article 6(5) of the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) for favoring its own services (self-preferencing) — nine Google services — in search ranking and crawling; the decision excludes AI Overviews. | — | ||
| European Commission | Designated ChatGPT a very large online search engine under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) — the EU label that puts the biggest search services under the law's strictest rules. ChatGPT is the third so designated, after Google Search and Bing, and the first that is not a traditional search engine. | — | ||
| UK Competition and Markets Authority | Ordered Google to give publishers an AI opt-out and attribution rights. | — | ||
| Alliance de la Presse d'Information Générale (France) | Complaint to France's competition authority: AI Overviews, launched in France without publisher consent, breach the 2022 compensation agreement under which Google was fined €250 million in 2024. | — | ||
| U.S. Congress (bipartisan bill) | A bill would require AI crawlers to identify themselves. | — | ||
| UK Competition and Markets Authority | Proposed letting Android and Chrome users pick an AI assistant such as ChatGPT or Perplexity, not just a rival search engine, on Google's default search choice screen — if the assistant meets technical and security tests the CMA has not detailed. The consultation closed Oct. 9; that day the News/Media Alliance asked again for AI assistants to be left off the screen, a request the CMA's draft had already rejected. A final decision is due by the end of the year. | — | ||
| UK Competition and Markets Authority | Ordered Google to give approved third parties free tools to move a UK user's search data at that user's request (a data portability requirement). Imposed June 17, 2026, but published to the CMA's register only on Oct. 1. Google may meet it by extending to the UK the tool it built for the EU's Digital Markets Act; compliance was due around mid-September. | — | ||
| European Commission | Opened a public consultation on copyright with a full section on generative AI: licensing, enforcement, and AI imitations of performers. | The European Commission's copyright consultation, including its generative-AI section, closes | ||
| UK Parliament (Private Member's Bill) | The Automated Online Software (Access and Transparency) Bill, from MP Damian Hinds, would require bots scraping UK websites to say who runs them and why, separating search indexing from AI training. Eight national news outlets urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to back it. It was set for a second reading on Oct. 16; no outcome has been reported. | — | ||
| Movement for an Open Web, to the European Commission and the UK Competition and Markets Authority | Complained that Meta's new business terms are anti-competitive and asked regulators to suspend them before they take effect Oct. 30 (interim measures). The terms let Meta use content from sites tied to a business or ad account; Meta dropped the word "train" on Oct. 17 and says the terms do not change its crawlers or override robots.txt. The CMA says it met Meta Oct. 21 and is in "urgent discussions"; the Commission says it will assess the complaint. On Oct. 24 Meta pushed the effective date to Nov. 20, without saying it will change the wording. | Meta's revised business terms, which publishers say let it take site content for AI, take effect (delayed from Oct. 30) |
Rows last revised Oct 23, 2026. A row changes when a law-money item publishes; nothing here is updated on a schedule.