AI on the Docket: Case News Roundup Volume 2

Issue 32 

This week I am bringing you another roundup of recent AI-related case news:  

Another Large Media Publisher Sues OpenAI Alleging Copyright Infringement 

Publishers Ziff Davis, Inc., Ziff Davis, LLC, IGN Entertainment, Inc., and Everyday Health Media, LLC have sued several OpenAI entities, alleging claims of copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, unjust enrichment, and trademark dilution.[i] The complaint alleges that plaintiffs produce nearly 2 million new and updated articles each year, and OpenAI has “intentionally and relentlessly” reproduced copies and produced derivatives of its works without permission.[ii]  

On May 14, 2025, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered Ziff Davis, Inc. et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. to be transferred from the District of Delaware to the Southern District of New York for centralization with the twelve other cases against OpenAI.[iii] The case was opened in the Southern District of New York as case number 1:25-cv-04315.  

Musk’s X Corp. Files Lawsuit Challenging Minnesota’s Election Deepfakes Statute 

X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Minnesota, to challenge the constitutionality and legal validity of Minnesota Statutes § 609.771.[iv] Minnesota Statutes § 609.771 is entitled, “Use of Deep Fake Technology to Influence Election.”[v] The Complaint alleges claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, immunity for and preemption by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and violations of the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution for vagueness.[vi]  

Summary Judgment Granted in favor of OpenAI in Mark Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C. 

Mark Walters filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, L.L.C. in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, alleging a claim of libel on the basis that ChatGPT responded to a journalist’s query about a federal court case in Washington state, stating that Mr. Walters was a party to the court case who was accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from The Second Amendment Foundation, when in reality, Mr. Walters was not a party to the lawsuit and has not been accused of defrauding or embezzling funds from The Second Amendment Foundation.[vii]  

On May 19, 2025, the Hon. Tracie Cason granted summary judgment to OpenAI for three reasons: 

1. The challenged output did not communicate defamatory meaning as a matter of law: it required a showing that a reasonable reader could be misled by the statements at issue, after time for reflection, and the Court found that “no reasonable reader * * * ‘after time for reflection,’ could have interpreted the output as communicating ‘actual facts[.]’”.[viii]  
2. The plaintiff could not meet his burden of establishing fault under the negligence or actual malice standard.[ix]  
3. The plaintiff conceded he had no actual damages, and could not recover presumed or punitive damages.[x]  

Conservative Activist Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Meta 

Plaintiff Robert “Robby” Starbuck filed a defamation lawsuit against Meta, alleging that Meta’s chatbot Meta AI made false statements that Mr. Starbuck had participated in the January 6^th riot when in fact he was in Tennessee.[xi] Further, Mr. Starbuck alleged that Meta’s AI voice feature falsely claimed he had pled guilty to disorderly conduct in relation to the January 6^th riot, advanced Holocaust denialism, that he posed a threat to his children’s wellbeing, and authorities should consider removing his parental rights.[xii]  The complaint alleges that Meta’s false statements about the plaintiff have resulted in reputational damage, career consequences, emotional distress, damage to relationships, and financial harm.[xiii]  

Preliminary Collective Certification Granted In Mobley v. Workday Inc. 

Plaintiff Derek Mobley filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that human resource management services provider Workday, Inc. utilizes AI tools to engage in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race, age, and/or disability in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the ADA Amendments Act.[xiv] On March 12, 2024, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.[xv] On July 12, 2024, the Hon. Rita Lin issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, which dismissed plaintiff’s “Title VII, ADEA, and ADA claims, to the extent they were based on an employment agency theory, and the intentional discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and Section 1981” without leave to amend.[xvi] Workday filed an answer to the first amended complaint on August 2, 2024. 

On February 6, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of collective action on the age discrimination claim.[xvii] The Hon. Rita Lin issued an order granting preliminary collective certification on May 16, 2025.[xviii]

Thanks for being here. 

Jennifer Ballard 

Good Journey Consulting 

P.S. Have you considered whether your clients may have AI-related claims or liabilities? There are over 60 AI-related lawsuits I’m tracking in areas including copyright infringement, copyright and patent applications, privacy, discrimination, facial recognition, healthcare, libel, lie detection, wiretapping, FOIA, malware, school suspensions, deepfakes, wire fraud, wrongful death, and antitrust. You can find summaries of all of these cases in Chapter 4 of A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI.  

[i] Complaint at 1, Ziff Davis, Inc. et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-00501 (D. Del. filed Apr. 24, 2025). 

[ii] Id. at 1-2. 

[iii] Conditional Transfer Order at 1, In Re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143 (S.D.N.Y. centralization order issued Apr. 3, 2025). 

[iv] Complaint at 1, X Corp. v. Keith Ellison, No. 0:25-cv-01649 (D. Minn. filed Apr. 23, 2025). 

[v] Minnesota Statutes § 609.771. 

[vi] Complaint at 19-29, X v. Ellison. 

[vii] Complaint at 2-3, Mark Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 (Super. Ct. of Gwinnett Cty., Ga. filed Jun. 2023). 

[viii] Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant OpenAI, L.L.C. at 5-6, Walters. 

[ix] Id. at 9. 

[x] Id. at 19. 

[xi] Complaint at 1, 52-56, Starbuck v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. N25C-04-283 SKR CCLD (Super. Ct. for Del. filed Apr. 29, 2025). 

[xii] Id. at 3. 

[xiii] Id. at 43-45. 

[xiv] First Amended Class Action Complaint at 1-3, Mobley v. Workday Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770, (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 21, 2023). 

[xv] Motion to Dismiss, Mobley. 

[xvi] Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss at 20, Mobley.   

[xvii] Plaintiff Derek Mobley’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action at 1, Mobley. 

[xviii] Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, Mobley.