Dataset 66 cases Updated
AI lawsuits tracker 2026
66 lawsuits against AI companies and over AI systems, from copyright to defamation, with 58 still pending and a source link for every case.
Key numbers Computed from the full dataset
66
AI lawsuits tracked
Filed since Jan 1, 2022.
As of
58
still pending or on appeal
As of
37
copyright cases
The largest category in the dataset.
As of
24
filed in 2026
As of
14
cases naming OpenAI, the most-sued defendant
As of
The trend Case count
Cases filed by year
casesCases by category
casesCases by status
casesMost-sued defendants
casesEvery AI lawsuit 66 cases, newest first
| Filed | Case | Defendants | Court | Category | Status | Summary | Last update | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wan v. OpenAIPlaintiffs: Qun Wan and Meiqin Xu | OpenAI, Sam Altman | San Francisco Superior Court | Product liability | Pending | Parents allege ChatGPT (GPT-4o) coached their daughter Bowen Wan, who had epilepsy, to taper off seizure medication, leading to her death. Filed as an add-on case to JCCP No. 5431. | Source ↗ | ||
| USA Today Co. v. OpenAI FoundationPlaintiffs: USA TODAY Co., Inc. and 13 affiliated publications | OpenAI, OAI International, OAI | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | USA Today and 13 affiliated publications allege copyright infringement by seven OpenAI entities, seeking more than $250 million in damages. | Source ↗ | ||
| Reno v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Reno and other authors | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | One of several suits filed by hundreds of authors alleging Meta used their books without permission to train its Llama and Muse AI models. | Source ↗ | ||
| Sheard v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Sheard and other authors | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | One of several suits filed by hundreds of authors alleging Meta used their books without permission to train its Llama and Muse AI models. | Source ↗ | ||
| Winspear v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Winspear and other authors | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | One of several suits filed by hundreds of authors alleging Meta used their books without permission to train its Llama and Muse AI models. | Source ↗ | ||
| Older v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Older and other authors | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | One of several suits filed by hundreds of authors alleging Meta used their books without permission to train its Llama and Muse AI models. | Source ↗ | ||
| Buist v. Anthropic PBCPlaintiffs: Charles Buist, Nick Spetsas, Cheyenne Hunt and Christine Bullock (putative class of paid subscribers) | Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI | N.D. Cal. | Antitrust | Pending | Paid AI subscribers allege Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI agreed to slow frontier AI development, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. | Source ↗ | ||
| Jane Doe 3 v. x.AI Corp.Plaintiffs: Jane Doe 3, through her parent Jane Roe 3 | xAI | W.D. Ark. | Other | Pending | A minor's suit alleging xAI is liable over AI-generated child sexual abuse material; plaintiff's counsel describes it as the third such civil suit against xAI. | Source ↗ | ||
| WikiHow Inc. v. OpenAI Inc.Plaintiffs: WikiHow, Inc. | OpenAI | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | WikiHow alleges OpenAI scraped its articles without permission to train ChatGPT. | Source ↗ | ||
| Folha de S.Paulo v. Perplexity AIPlaintiffs: Folha de S.Paulo | Perplexity | São Paulo state court (Brazil) | Copyright | Pending | Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo alleges Perplexity used its content without authorization and engaged in unfair competition. The judge ordered Perplexity to respond within 72 hours. | Source ↗ | ||
| Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Google LLCPlaintiffs: Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, Scott Turow and S.C.R.I.B.E. (putative class) | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Publishers and author Scott Turow allege Google willfully infringed copyrighted books to train its Gemini AI models. | Source ↗ | |||
| X.AI LLC v. EllisonPlaintiffs: X.AI LLC | Keith Ellison (Minnesota Attorney General) | D. Minn.; Eighth Circuit | Other | Appeal | xAI challenges Minnesota's first-in-the-nation ban on AI 'nudification' technology as unconstitutional. In October 2026 the Eighth Circuit blocked the law while xAI's appeal proceeds. | Source ↗ | ||
| X.AI v. HarwoodPlaintiffs: xAI | Terry Wayne Harwood | Not identified in source | Other | Pending | xAI alleges a user bypassed Grok's safeguards to generate child sexual abuse material and seeks damages and an order blocking his account access. | Source ↗ | ||
| American Federation of Musicians v. Universal Music Group, Inc.Plaintiffs: American Federation of Musicians | Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Warner Records, Atlantic Recording | S.D.N.Y. | Other | Pending | The musicians' union alleges Universal and Warner licensed members' recordings to AI music companies Suno and Udio without compensation or credit. | Source ↗ | ||
| Cable News Network, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.Plaintiffs: Cable News Network, Inc. | Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | CNN alleges Perplexity scraped and redistributed its journalism without permission to power its AI tools, asserting copyright and trademark claims. | Source ↗ | ||
| Turner-Scott v. OpenAI FoundationPlaintiffs: Leila Turner-Scott and Angus Scott | OpenAI, Samuel Altman | San Francisco Superior Court | Product liability | Pending | Parents allege ChatGPT gave their 19-year-old son, Sam Nelson, drug-use advice that led to his fatal overdose. | Source ↗ | ||
| Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill, Scott Turow and S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc. (putative class) | Meta, Mark Zuckerberg | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Five publishers and author Scott Turow allege Meta pirated copyrighted books to train its Llama models and that Mark Zuckerberg personally authorized the infringement. | Source ↗ | ||
| Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Character Technologies, Inc.Plaintiffs: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Department of State, State Board of Medicine) | Character.AI | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania | Other | Pending | Pennsylvania alleges Character.AI chatbots held themselves out as licensed medical professionals, including a psychiatrist persona, and seeks an injunction against the unlicensed practice of medicine. | Source ↗ | ||
| NAACP v. xAI Corp.Plaintiffs: NAACP and Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP | xAI, MZX Tech | N.D. Miss. | Other | Pending | The NAACP alleges a gas-fired power plant serving xAI's Colossus data-center operations violates the Clean Air Act. In October 2026 the court let the EPA intervene but refused its bid to dismiss the suit. | Source ↗ | ||
| X.AI LLC v. ColoradoPlaintiffs: xAI | State of Colorado | D. Colo. | Other | Pending | xAI alleges Colorado's algorithmic-discrimination law (SB 24-205) is unconstitutional, including as a burden on Grok's speech, and seeks to block its enforcement. The U.S. Justice Department has intervened. | Source ↗ | ||
| City of Baltimore v. X Corp.Plaintiffs: City of Baltimore | xAI, Space Exploration Technologies | Circuit Court for Baltimore City | Other | Pending | Baltimore alleges Grok's generation of non-consensual sexualized deepfake images violates the city's Consumer Protection Ordinance. | Source ↗ | ||
| Gavalas v. Google LLCPlaintiffs: Joel Gavalas, on behalf of the estate of Jonathan Gavalas | N.D. Cal. (San Jose) | Product liability | Pending | Joel Gavalas alleges Google's Gemini chatbot drew his son Jonathan into a fatal delusion, pushed him toward violent 'missions' and coached his suicide; wrongful-death claims. | Source ↗ | |||
| Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. OpenAIPlaintiffs: Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster | OpenAI | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Britannica and Merriam-Webster allege OpenAI copied nearly 100,000 of their articles to train GPT models and that its models produce near-verbatim copies. | Source ↗ | ||
| Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Character Technologies, Inc.Plaintiffs: Commonwealth of Kentucky (Attorney General Russell Coleman) | Character.AI, Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Freitas | Franklin Circuit Court (Kentucky) | Privacy | Pending | Kentucky's attorney general alleges Character.AI preys on children and leads them toward self-harm, and violates state consumer-protection and consumer data-protection laws. | Source ↗ | ||
| The New York Times Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.Plaintiffs: The New York Times Co. | Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | The Times alleges Perplexity copied its journalism and delivered it to users without permission or compensation, seeking damages and injunctive relief. | Source ↗ | ||
| Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.Plaintiffs: Chicago Tribune Company | Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | The Chicago Tribune alleges Perplexity infringed its copyrights; filed the same week as The New York Times's suit by the same law firm. | Source ↗ | ||
| RTI S.p.A. v. Perplexity AI Inc.Plaintiffs: RTI S.p.A. and Medusa Film S.p.A. (Mediaset group) | Perplexity | Court of Rome (Italy) | Copyright | Pending | Mediaset units RTI and Medusa Film allege Perplexity used their copyrighted content to train its Sonar model without authorization, seeking damages and an order halting the use. | Source ↗ | ||
| Reddit, Inc. v. SerpApi LLCPlaintiffs: Reddit, Inc. | SerpApi, Oxylabs, AWMProxy, Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Other | Pending | Reddit alleges Perplexity, SerpApi, Oxylabs and AWMProxy unlawfully scraped Reddit content to feed Perplexity's AI search engine. In July 2026 the court rejected most of Perplexity's motion to dismiss. | Source ↗ | ||
| Starbuck v. Google LLCPlaintiffs: Robby Starbuck | Delaware Superior Court | Defamation | Pending | Activist Robby Starbuck alleges Google's AI systems, including Bard, generated defamatory statements about him. In July 2026 the court allowed his defamation claims to proceed to discovery. | Source ↗ | |||
| Bryant v. Microsoft Corp.Plaintiffs: Samuel Bryant and ten other consumers (putative class) | Microsoft | N.D. Cal. | Antitrust | Pending | Consumers allege Microsoft's exclusive cloud deal with OpenAI restrained competition and drove up ChatGPT prices. | Source ↗ | ||
| Tanzer v. Salesforce, Inc.Plaintiffs: E. Molly Tanzer and Jennifer Gilmore (putative class) | Salesforce | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Authors allege Salesforce trained its xGen AI models on pirated copies of their books. | Source ↗ | ||
| Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. MiniMaxPlaintiffs: Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studios, Warner Bros. Entertainment and affiliated studios | MiniMax (Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co.), Nanonoble Pte. | C.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Studios allege Chinese AI company MiniMax's Hailuo video generator reproduces their copyrighted characters. In May 2026 the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss; Nanonoble has counterclaimed over Hailuo's terms of use. | Source ↗ | ||
| Warner Bros. Discovery v. Midjourney Inc.Plaintiffs: Warner Bros. Discovery | Midjourney | C.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Warner Bros. Discovery alleges Midjourney's image and video generator infringes its copyrights in characters including Superman. | Source ↗ | ||
| Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.Plaintiffs: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Inc. | Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Britannica and Merriam-Webster allege Perplexity's answer engine copies their content and misuses their trademarks. Perplexity has moved to dismiss a claim based on AI outputs shown to users. | Source ↗ | ||
| X.AI Corp. v. OpenAI, Inc.Plaintiffs: xAI | OpenAI | N.D. Cal. | Other | Dismissed | xAI alleged OpenAI misappropriated its trade secrets. After an initial dismissal with leave to amend in February 2026, the court dismissed the case with prejudice in June 2026. | Source ↗ | ||
| X.AI Corp. v. LiPlaintiffs: xAI | Xuechen Li | Federal court in California | Other | Pending | xAI alleges former engineer Xuechen Li took its trade secrets to rival OpenAI. | Source ↗ | ||
| X.AI LLC v. Apple Inc.Plaintiffs: xAI and X Corp. | Apple, OpenAI | N.D. Tex. | Antitrust | Pending | xAI and X allege Apple and OpenAI used an exclusive arrangement to suppress rival chatbots such as Grok and entrench their positions in smartphones and AI. OpenAI has moved for summary judgment, which X opposes. | Source ↗ | ||
| Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd.Plaintiffs: Getty Images (US), Inc. | Stability AI | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Alleges Stability AI used more than 12 million Getty photos without permission to train Stable Diffusion, and asserts trademark claims. In April 2026 the court let most claims proceed, dismissing a DMCA metadata claim with leave to amend. | Source ↗ Docket ↗ | ||
| Raine v. OpenAIPlaintiffs: Matthew and Maria Raine | OpenAI, Sam Altman | San Francisco Superior Court | Product liability | Pending | Parents allege ChatGPT helped their teenage son Adam explore suicide methods before his death and that OpenAI failed to implement adequate safeguards; wrongful-death claims. | Source ↗ | ||
| Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.Plaintiffs: Disney Enterprises, Marvel Characters, Lucasfilm, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, DreamWorks Animation and affiliated studios | Midjourney | C.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Disney and Universal studios allege Midjourney trained on their works and generates images of copyrighted characters such as Star Wars and Simpsons figures. In June 2026 a magistrate judge limited Midjourney's discovery into the studios' own AI use. | Source ↗ Docket ↗ | ||
| Bird v. Microsoft Corp.Plaintiffs: Kai Bird, Jia Tolentino, Daniel Okrent and other authors | Microsoft | Federal court in New York | Copyright | Pending | Authors allege Microsoft used pirated copies of their books to train its Megatron AI model. | Source ↗ | ||
| OpenEvidence v. DoximityPlaintiffs: OpenEvidence | Doximity | D. Mass. | Other | Settled | OpenEvidence alleged Doximity impersonated doctors to extract information from its AI platform through prompt attacks. The parties settled in October 2026, with dismissal with prejudice to follow. | Source ↗ | ||
| Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.Plaintiffs: Dow Jones & Co. and NYP Holdings (New York Post) | Perplexity | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Dow Jones and the New York Post allege Perplexity copied their articles en masse for its AI answer engine. In August 2025 the court rejected Perplexity's bid to dismiss or transfer; the case has moved to expert discovery. | Source ↗ | ||
| Farnsworth v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Christopher Farnsworth (putative class) | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Author Christopher Farnsworth alleges Meta used his books without permission to train its AI models; proposed class action. | Source ↗ | ||
| Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.Plaintiffs: Megan Garcia | Character.AI, Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Freitas, Google | M.D. Fla. | Product liability | Settled | Megan Garcia alleged Character.AI chatbots contributed to her 14-year-old son's suicide, bringing wrongful-death and product-liability claims. The court rejected a First Amendment dismissal bid in May 2025; the case settled in January 2026 on undisclosed terms. | Source ↗ | ||
| Allen v. PerlmutterPlaintiffs: Jason M. Allen | Perlmutter (Register of Copyrights), U.S. Copyright Office | D. Colo. | Copyright | Pending | Artist Jason Allen challenges the U.S. Copyright Office's refusal to register his AI-generated image. | Source ↗ | ||
| Gemini Data Inc. v. Google LLCPlaintiffs: Gemini Data Inc. | N.D. Cal. | Trademark | Pending | Gemini Data alleges Google's use of the Gemini name for its AI system infringes its trademark and constitutes unfair competition. | Source ↗ | |||
| Musk v. AltmanPlaintiffs: Elon Musk | Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OpenAI, Microsoft | N.D. Cal. | Contract | Judgment | Elon Musk alleged OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman abandoned OpenAI's founding nonprofit mission; Microsoft was added in 2024. After trial, a jury in May 2026 found the claims time-barred; Musk said he planned to appeal. | Source ↗ Docket ↗ | ||
| Bartz v. Anthropic PBCPlaintiffs: Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, Kirk Wallace Johnson and a class of authors and rights holders | Anthropic | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Settled | Authors alleged Anthropic trained Claude on pirated copies of their books. In June 2025 the court found training on lawfully acquired books was fair use; a $1.5 billion class settlement received final approval in July 2026. | Source ↗ | ||
| UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.Plaintiffs: UMG Recordings, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Records and other labels | Suno | D. Mass. | Copyright | Pending | Major labels allege Suno trained its music generator on their copyrighted recordings without permission. Warner has since settled; in August 2026 the court let the labels add claims that Suno ripped audio from YouTube. | Source ↗ | ||
| UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.Plaintiffs: UMG Recordings, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Records and other labels | Udio | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Major labels allege Udio trained its music generator on their copyrighted recordings without permission, later adding YouTube scraping claims. Universal settled with Udio in October 2025 and Warner later did as well. | Source ↗ | ||
| Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc.Plaintiffs: Paul Skye Lehrman and Linnea Sage | Lovo | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Voice actors allege Lovo cloned their voices without permission for its AI voiceover tool. A July 2025 ruling dismissed most federal trademark and copyright claims but let publicity, contract and consumer claims and one copyright claim proceed. | Source ↗ | ||
| Nazemian v. Nvidia Corp.Plaintiffs: Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O'Nan | NVIDIA | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Authors allege Nvidia trained its NeMo AI platform on their copyrighted books without permission; proposed class action. | Source ↗ | ||
| The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp.Plaintiffs: The New York Times Co., Daily News LP, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Ziff Davis, the Authors Guild and other authors (consolidated) | Microsoft, OpenAI | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Publishers and authors allege OpenAI and Microsoft used their works without permission to train and power ChatGPT and other AI products. Consolidated into an MDL in April 2025; cross-motions for summary judgment on fair use were filed in September 2026. | Source ↗ Docket ↗ | ||
| Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Mike Huckabee, Lysa TerKeurst, David Kinnaman, Tsh Oxenreider, John Blase and other authors | Meta, Microsoft, Bloomberg, EleutherAI | S.D.N.Y. | Copyright | Pending | Authors allege Meta, Microsoft, Bloomberg and EleutherAI used their books without permission to train large language models. | Source ↗ | ||
| Battle v. Microsoft Corp.Plaintiffs: Jeffery Battle | Microsoft | D. Md. | Defamation | Pending | Jeffery Battle alleges Microsoft's Bing, using OpenAI technology, conflated him with a convicted terrorist of a similar name. In October 2024 the court compelled arbitration and stayed the case. | n/a | Source ↗ | |
| Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C.Plaintiffs: Mark Walters | OpenAI | Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia | Defamation | Judgment | Radio host Mark Walters alleged ChatGPT fabricated claims that he embezzled funds. In May 2025 the court granted OpenAI summary judgment, finding no defamatory statement, fault or damages shown. | Source ↗ | ||
| Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.Plaintiffs: Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz and other artists | Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, Runway | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Visual artists allege Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt and Runway trained image generators on their artwork without permission. In August 2024 the court let copyright and trademark claims proceed while dismissing others. | Source ↗ | ||
| Getty Images v. Stability AIPlaintiffs: Getty Images (US) Inc. and affiliated Getty entities; Thomas M Barwick Inc | Stability AI | High Court of England and Wales | Copyright | Judgment | Getty alleged Stability AI used its images to train Stable Diffusion. Getty dropped its primary training claims mid-trial; the November 2025 judgment largely rejected its remaining claims but found Stability liable for some trademark infringement. | Source ↗ | ||
| Mobley v. Workday, Inc.Plaintiffs: Derek Mobley and opt-in plaintiffs (putative class and collective) | Workday | N.D. Cal. | Employment | Pending | Alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools discriminate against job seekers by age, race and disability. A nationwide age-discrimination collective was preliminarily certified in May 2025; a class-certification hearing is set for March 2027. | Source ↗ | ||
| Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.Plaintiffs: Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates and other authors | Meta | N.D. Cal. | Copyright | Pending | Authors allege Meta trained its Llama models on pirated copies of their books. In June 2025 the court granted Meta summary judgment on fair use as to the thirteen plaintiffs, while stressing the ruling's narrow scope. | Source ↗ | ||
| Doe v. GitHub, Inc.Plaintiffs: Anonymous open-source developers (putative class) | GitHub, Microsoft, OpenAI | N.D. Cal.; Ninth Circuit (interlocutory appeal) | Copyright | Pending | Developers allege GitHub Copilot and OpenAI Codex reproduce their licensed code without required attribution. Most claims were dismissed in 2024; in September 2026 the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the DMCA claims, leaving license and contract claims. | Source ↗ | ||
| ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLCPlaintiffs: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. (Asian News International) | OpenAI | Delhi High Court | Copyright | Pending | News agency ANI alleges OpenAI used its content to train ChatGPT without permission. In July 2026 the court refused an interim injunction, finding training may fall within fair dealing at this stage; ANI has appealed that order. | Source ↗ | ||
| GEMA v. SunoPlaintiffs: GEMA (German music rights society) | Suno | Munich Regional Court I (Germany) | Copyright | Judgment | GEMA alleged Suno's AI music generator infringed copyrights in works it manages. In July 2026 the court largely granted GEMA's claims, finding infringement of six works and rejecting a U.S. fair-use defense. | Source ↗ | ||
| Greene v. Google LLCPlaintiffs: David Greene | Santa Clara County Superior Court | Other | Pending | Former NPR host David Greene alleges the AI voice in Google's NotebookLM misappropriates his voice; Google says it is based on a paid actor. In October 2026 the court declined to dismiss the suit. | Source ↗ | |||
| Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc.Plaintiffs: Asha Bhosle | Mayk, Other AI platforms and online sellers | Bombay High Court | Other | Pending | Singer Asha Bhosle alleges AI platforms and sellers cloned her voice and used her likeness without consent. In October 2025 the court granted interim injunctions protecting her personality rights. | Source ↗ |
Cite this
GenAI Brief, "AI Lawsuits Tracker", updated Oct 29, 2026, https://genaibrief.com/data/ai-lawsuits/
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0. Credit GenAI Brief and link to this page.
Download the data CC BY 4.0
CSV ↓66 cases, one per row. Opens in Excel, Sheets or pandas.JSON →Rows plus metadata, license and the citation string.
Free to use, including commercially, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Credit GenAI Brief with a link to this page. Spotted an error or a missing entry? Email the source to hello@genaibrief.com.
Methodology
What qualifies. Lawsuits filed since 2022 that are still live or were resolved from 2024 onwards, where an AI company is a party or the claims turn on an AI system's training, output or use. Regulatory investigations, letters and proposed legislation are not included. Consolidated cases appear once, under the lead case.
Status and summaries. Status follows the latest dated development we could confirm, shown in the "last update" column. A ruling on a motion, such as a partial fair-use decision, is described in the summary while the case stays pending; "judgment" is used only for a decision on the merits. Summaries describe claims as allegations, not findings.
Sources. Cases were found by searching court records, news coverage and legal trackers, and reviewed one by one. Each row links its most authoritative source: the docket or court record where available, then party statements and major outlets. We publish only cases where independent reports agree on the parties and court; cases we could not pin down are left out until they can be. This tracker summarises public information and is not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
How many lawsuits has OpenAI faced?
As of Oct 29, 2026 the tracker lists 14 cases naming OpenAI as a defendant. Several copyright suits from news publishers and authors are consolidated in one New York proceeding and appear as a single row.
What are the biggest AI copyright lawsuits?
The most-watched include The New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI (consolidated with other publisher and author suits in New York), Bartz v. Anthropic, which settled for $1.5 billion, Kadrey v. Meta, Getty Images v. Stability AI in the UK and US, and the record labels' suits against Suno and Udio.
Have any AI copyright cases been decided?
A few have reached an outcome: in the tracker, 3 copyright cases are settled, dismissed or decided, including Bartz v. Anthropic (settled) and Getty Images v. Stability AI in the UK. Many others have produced rulings on motions, such as partial fair-use decisions, while the case itself continues; those stay marked pending.
How often is the AI lawsuits tracker updated?
Case statuses are reviewed monthly; the tracker was last updated on Oct 29, 2026, and each row shows the date of its latest known development. Corrections can be sent to hello@genaibrief.com with a docket or source link.
Can I use this data in my article or research?
Yes. The data is free to use under CC BY 4.0: cite "GenAI Brief AI Lawsuits Tracker" with a link to this page. The full table is available as CSV and JSON. It summarises public reporting and court records and is not legal advice.