@AdamEisgrau

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 5:25-cv-06213 - CourtListener.com Docket for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 5:25-cv-06213 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

The case is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 5:25-cv-06213, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7089...

It may not be too much of a stretch to suggest that this may prove to be the shortest-lived suit of its kind yet filed.

@Meta.com's Reply is online via ECF at:
ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sho...

It's points throughout the filing are as a solid and factually clear as they are on direct infringement:

@Meta.com' argues:

@Meta.com's submitted its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss the AI training/© infringement Complaint of adult video maker Strike 3:🧵

In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143 - CourtListener.com Docket for In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

@OpenAI.com's Memo of Law in support of its Opposition to the Motion to Amend is online via ECF at:
ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127038...

The case is In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6987...

@OpenAI.com also argues that, even if robot.txt notices are cognizable, it didn't "circumvent" the protocols within the meaning of the statute:

@OpenAI.com's argument seemingly solid is entirely non-technical and direct: a notice isn't a "locked gate":

Obviously, the result's important to @ZiffDavis.com, but it's also potentially consequential in many other cases. Spooked by the partial "training = fair use" ruling in Bartz, other plaintiffs have jumped to amend their cases to add DMCA claims "immune" by law to a fair use defense.

@ZiffDavis.com is among the dozen in the MDL now before SDNY Judge Stein. ZD wants to amend its Complaint to claim @OpenAI.com breached the DMCA by "circumventing" its robot.txt instructions. @OpenAI.com opposes arguing that only "access" – not "copy" –  controls (robots.txt) are covered:

Sanctions – #298 in In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation (N.D. Cal., 5:23-cv-03440) – CourtListener.com Sanctions

@Google.com's Opposition to the Motion for Certification is available by ECG here:
ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sho...

It's pointed Motion to Sanction is at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6759...

In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, 5:23-cv-03440 - CourtListener.com Docket for In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, 5:23-cv-03440 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

The case is In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, 5:23-cv-03440, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6759...

.@Google wants ALL of plaintiffs' class allegations struck down. . . WITH prejudice:

Noting that the Court's already cautioned plaintiffs for such gamesmanship once, @Google.com accuses them of "class-litigation-by-ambush" and has pretty well had it:

Here's how @Google.com's Opposition and Motion to Sanction each lay out side by side:

Yesterday, @Google.com opposed plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in In re Google... for failure to show that common questions "predominate" AND for illicitly changing class definitions. They also moved that Judge Lee to sanction plaintiffs for that bad faith switcheroo:🧵

Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:23-cv-03417 - CourtListener.com Docket for Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:23-cv-03417 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

The case is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:23-cv-03417, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6756...

Brief – #654 in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:23-cv-03417) – CourtListener.com Brief re Public Refiling of Dkt. 635 (Administrative Motion Requesting Leave to Obtain Limited Additional Discovery) filed byTa-Nehisi Coates, Junot Diaz, Christopher Farnsworth, Christopher Golden, Andrew Sean Greer, David Henry Hwang, Richard Kadrey, Matthew Klam, Laura Lippman, Sarah Silverman, Rachel Louise Snyder, Lysa TerKeurst, Jacqueline Woodson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David R. Choffnes, # 2 Declaration Maxwell V. Pritt, # 3 Appendix A, # 4 Appendix B, # 5 Appendix C, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Exhibit F, # 12 Exhibit G, # 13 Exhibit H, # 14 Exhibit I, # 15 Exhibit J, # 16 Exhibit K, # 17 Exhibit L, # 18 Exhibit M, # 19 Exhibit N, # 20 Exhibit O, # 21 Exhibit P, # 22 Exhibit Q, # 23 Exhibit R, # 24 Exhibit S, # 25 Exhibit T, # 26 Exhibit U)(Pritt, Maxwell) (Filed on 11/20/2025) (Entered: 11/20/2025)

Plaintiffs' Motion, which it's hard to see the Judge denying, is online at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6756...

Specifically, plaintiffs now seek:

@Meta.com's disclosure, as Kadrey counsel point out in their just-filed Motion, is just the latest in a series of such "reveals" after the close of fact discovery in the case, which is moving to trial fueled by claims of infringing distribution based on the torrenting at issue:

On Wednesday of this week, per @edleeprof below, @Meta.com disclosed it had located yet another engineer who torrented *the entirety* of a "pirate" dataset. In <24 hrs Kadrey, counsel has just petitioned for lots of additional discovery:
chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/11/20/...

#89 in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc (3rd Cir., 25-2153) – CourtListener.com ECF FILER: REDACTED ELECTRONIC PROOF BRIEF on behalf of Appellees Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. Certificate of Service dated 11/19/2025 by ECF. [25-2153] (DMC) [Entered: 11/19/2025 02:23 PM]

The case docket on appeal is Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc, 25-2153, (3rd Cir.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7062...

@ThomsonReuter.com's new Brief is online at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7062...

#37 in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc (3rd Cir., 25-2153) – CourtListener.com ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC AMICUS BRIEF on the merits on behalf of Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress, and NetChoice in support of Appellant/Petitioner. Certificate of Service dated 09/29/2025 by ECF. F.R.A.P. 29(a) Permission: YES. [25-2153] (MSK) [Entered: 09/29/2025 10:58 AM]

Ross will likely file a Reply in about two weeks, It's anyone's guess as to when the case then might be set for argument (or decided) but considering the at least *14 amicus briefs* filed isn't likely to speed the process! @ProgressChamber.org et al's is here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7062...

More than a bit snarkily, plaintiffs also take a swipe at Ross' founders while dismissing the company's more macro arguments about the importance of not thwarting innovation by over-protecting existing works: the Constitutional purpose of copyright law...

Re: fair use, @ThomsonReuters.com – as in most such cases – leans most (but not entirely) on two statutory factors: claiming Factor 4 market harm based on substitution for WestLaw by Ross' research tool, and disputing that Ross' use was transformative under Factor 1.

The centrality of plaintiffs' points about the originality quotient of headnotes, and thus their protectability under ©, is clear from the outset of the brief:

Here's how @ThomsonReuters' arguments on appeal lay out:

Notable for the Dist Judge's unusual eve-of-trial "flip flop" on his initial summary judgment ruling for Ross on fair use, the case turns on headnote ©ability and may be of limited application to true gen AI cases if Ross is found to have built a competing product to WestLaw.

@ThomsonReuters.com v Ross, a *non*-gen AI fair use/© case, took another step this week toward a 3d Circuit ruling with the filing of plaintiff appellees' brief again accusing Ross of "theft" of WestLaw headnotes:🧵

Order Relating Case – #10 in Alexander v. Salesforce, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 5:25-cv-09560) – CourtListener.com Order Relating Case

Judge Breyer's Order is online at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7188...