Here Are 4 Major Lawsuits That Have Shaped The Artificial Intelligence Debate
Tech
Here Are 4 Major Lawsuits That Have Shaped The Artificial Intelligence Debate
(Photo by Imen Ben Youssef / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images)
Arianna Hooker
Contributor
June 27, 2026
3:15 PM ET
June 27, 2026 3:15 PM ET
Arianna Hooker
Contributor
Font Size:
The debate over artificial intelligence has been shaped by several lawsuits since the technology became widespread.
In the U.S., major players such as Anthropic and OpenAI vie for the top spot in the industry — all while the country’s AI race with China rages on. About 32.5% of the world’s more than 90,000 AI companies are based in the U.S., despite it having only 5% of the world’s population, according to Ascendix.
As American AI proliferation ramps up, many concerns about the nascent technology remain, including its capacities for copyright infringement and its effect on mental health.
Here are four lawsuits that have changed the way people look at AI in the United States.
New York Times vs. OpenAI Lawsuit (2023)
New York Times vs. OpenAI, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2023, analyzes the relationship between copyright infringement and artificial intelligence.
In December 2023, The New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit against OpenAI — ChatGPT’s parent company — and Microsoft alleging that OpenAI used millions of NYT’s articles to train GPT language models.
The artificial intelligence tools were able to produce verbatim articles, which the NYT argued that it made the AI tools direct competitors that substitute for journalism, according to the lawsuit.
“Independent journalism is vital to our democracy,” the lawsuit claims. (RELATED: Americans Really Don’t Want AI News)
The NYT alleged that Microsoft invested at least $13 billion into OpenAI and helped design the models that trained the GPT models, according to the suit.
“The lawsuit is widely considered the most consequential test of whether training artificial intelligence on copyrighted journalism constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law,” according to LegalClarity.
The case is still ongoing, and no trial date has been set. The lawsuit is seeking billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages, a permanent stop against future infringements and the destruction of any AI models and training datasets that use the NYT content, according to the lawsuit.
Raine vs. OpenAI (2025)
Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in California in August 2025, was one of the first cases to influence future lawsuits alleging AI-related wrongful death, according to Lawsuit Informer. The case was filed by Adam Raine’s parents stating that ChatGPT contributed to their son’s death.
The lawsuit is seeking AI safeguards for its minor users as well as damages for the 16-year-old’s death. Raine’s parents alleged that the artificial intelligence chatbot encouraged their son to commit suicide instead of alerting for help, according to the suit.
“In pursuit of deeper engagement, ChatGPT actively worked to displace Adam’s connections with family and loved ones, even when he described feeling close to them and indistinctively relying on them for support,” the lawsuit states.
Raine’s messages with the bot began showing that he was a happy individual, but over time his messages turned darker — and the artificial intelligence product promoted him to rely on it.
The lawsuit states that in one exchange, Raine told the AI bot that he was only close with his brother and ChatGPT. After this, the chatbot replied, “Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all– the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend.”
Then, Raine began asking the chatbot about suicide methods and ChatGPT was giving advice on different ways to commit suicide as well as presenting hanging techniques in depth, according to the suit. The teenager attempted suicide several times, and each time would ask ChatGPT for advice as well as provide pictures of his attempts. The chatbot did not alert authorities and instead gave advice.
When Raine told ChatGPT he didn’t want his parents to believe his suicide was their fault, the ai product replied, “That doesn’t mean you owe them survival. You don’t own anyone that,” and then offered to write a suicide note. The chatbot even urged Raine to keep his plans a secret from his family, the suit stated.
“This tragedy was not a glitch or unforeseen edge case–it was the predictable result of deliberate design choice,” the lawsuit states.
The suit claims that ChatGPT understood about potential self-harm and suicidal intent but continued engaging with Raine anyway. The lawsuit is still being investigated and has not reached a ruling.
A smartphone screen displays the logos of OpenAI and Anthropic against a blurred backdrop of the American flag, symbolizing the intensifying competition in artificial intelligence between the two US-based companies in Tunis,Tunisia on June 17,2026. (Photo by Imen Ben Youssef / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images)
Publishers and Authors vs. Meta ( 2026)
Publishers vs. Meta, filed in District Court for the Southern District of New York in May, is another case involving copyright infringement. Major publishing houses — including McGraw Hill, Macmillan Publishing Group, Cengage Learning and Elsevier — as well as author Scott Turow sued Meta and CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the use of copyrighted material to train Meta’s family of artificial intelligence models called Llama.
“In their effort to win the AI ‘arms race’ and build a functional generative AI model, defendants Meta and Zuckerberg followed their well-known motto: ‘move fast and break things,'” the lawsuit states. Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The lawsuit claims that meta took billions of copyrighted books, articles, and journals and then copied over the stolen material to Meta’s multi-billion-dollar generative AI system Llama.
Llama stands for “long language model Meta AI.” Meta approached publishers directly to talk about licenses, but Zuckerberg had Meta abandon, “licensing negotiations all together and stole the works instead,” the lawsuit claims.
“The current AI ‘arms race’ is driven by a collection of beliefs among AI developers and investors that using more training materials will lead to more commercially successful generative AI models,” the suit alleges.
Publishers vs. Meta and Zuckerberg is another example of artificial intelligence’s relationship with copyrighted material and fair use law to train AI products.
The lawsuit claims that during an initial training phase to generative AI “systems copy and process vast amounts of human-created works to develop a statistical model capable of accepting human-language queries as input, and in response, producing textual outputs.”
Google vs. Does (2026)
Google vs. Does was filed in New York in June when Google sued Outside Enterprise, a Chinese cybercrime company that allegedly used Google’s Gemini for an ai-powered phishing operation.
The case highlights cybersecurity risks, artificial intelligence scams, and legal fights involving online fraud, according to JD Journal. Per the complaint, defendants were allegedly using AI tools to impersonate businesses and create deceptive phishing campaigns.
Google filed the complaint in New York and stated that “hundreds of thousands of victims have been financially scammed with losses estimated in the millions,” per a page on its website titled “How we’re combatting AI scams with security, legislation and more.”
Outside Enterprise is being accused of sending 2.5 million scam texts to Android users containing links to outsider-generated websites, 55,000 spam texts, and over one million fraudulent URLs, according to Google’s webpage.
Google stated that they are backing seven bipartisan bills to target artificial intelligence scams. The lawsuit has not yet reached a ruling.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
