On March 30, 2026, a Colorado federal court held that a pro se litigant’s AI-generated litigation materials are protected work product, then wrote its own protective order provision that effectively bars consumer AI platforms from processing confidential discovery materials.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a $1 billion copyright verdict against Cox Communications, holding that an ISP is not contributorily liable for its subscribers’ infringement merely because it continues to serve known infringers. The decision also may have rendered the DMCA safe harbor obsolete.

Britannica and Merriam-Webster sued OpenAI for copyright infringement and added a Lanham Act claim alleging that ChatGPT’s hallucinations, when attributed to their brands, constitute false designation of origin.

Gracenote sues OpenAI for copying not just its media metadata, but the proprietary relational framework that organizes it. The complaint deploys established compilation copyright doctrine in a new context: as evidence that OpenAI's models encoded the protectable structure of a curated database, not just the data values.

The ruling underscores that no matter how egregious an employee’s conduct, a trade secret claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) requires allegations that the defendant acquired, induced, or used the stolen information, not just that it hired the people who took it.

Judge Rakoff ruled that a writer who secretly contributed scenes to Top Gun: Maverick could not copyright his work because the scenes he claimed to have written were unauthorized derivative works built on Paramount’s IP. Worse, Paramount’s counterclaims for infringement and fraud are now set to go to trial.