Insights

In Cox v. Sony, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari and will hear oral arguments this term. Cox seeks to overturn a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that affirmed a billion-dollar judgment against Cox after a jury concluded that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement based on its users’ direct copyright infringement.

On September 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to certain provisions of California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. This interlocutory ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates why and how state laws can withstand and avoid First Amendment challenges. Second, it showcases the potential difficulties in establishing associational standing on behalf of member technology and digital commerce companies.

The Really Simple Licensing Collective (“RSL Collective”), a nonprofit dedicated to creating collective licensing solutions for content creators and publishers, has announced Really Simple Licensing (“RSL”), a new standard designed to stop crawlers from scraping websites for content without permission or compensation. If adopted, RSL could have major implications for both online platforms and the AI technologies that source content for training data from them.

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court held that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). In the Grokster case, the Supreme Court found that peer-to-peer file sharing companies could be liable for copyright infringement for their users’ deployment of file sharing software. There, the Court found that liability was warranted because the file sharing companies knew that its users were infringing, and the companies materially contributed to that infringement.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been credited with “creating” the internet by immunizing websites and platforms from lawsuits arising from the content posted by third-party users. Specifically, an internet company is not liable for publishing or posting content drafted by another person under conventional common law tort theories such as defamation or slander, however loathsome, violent or otherwise hateful that content is.  At the same time, Section 230 also immunizes a website or platform that engages in good-faith moderation of content it deems to violate its terms of use/conditions or community standards. 

Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.

On April 3, 2025, the United States Department of Justice’ Antitrust Division hosted a forum on “Big-Tech Censorship” in which key Trump Administration Officials announced their desire to reform, or entirely overhaul, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In March 2025, we wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) inquiry into “tech censorship” and its associated request for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” That RFI remains open, and its deadline is May 21, 2025.

On February 20, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission launched an “inquiry” into “tech censorship” by calling for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” The deadline for comments is May 21, 2025.

On February 4, 2025, California Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced AB 412, titled the AI Copyright Transparency Act (the “Act”), which is aimed at increasing greater transparency when copyrighted materials are used as training data for Generative AI (“GenAI”) models and systems. If passed, the Act would require developers who use copyrighted materials as part of their training dataset to disclose this use to the copyright owners.

On Sunday, September 29, 2024, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 1047, a bill to enact the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. Although the bill passed the California Assembly and Senate, it generated significant controversy and debate within the tech community. The Center for AI Safety, Elon Musk, the L.A. Times editorial board, and San Francisco-based AI startup Anthropic all supported the bill; while Meta, OpenAI, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposed it as hindering innovation.

In an order filed on November 10, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss an indictment finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and money laundering claims brought against Swiss resident and citizen Daisy T. Rafoi-Bleuler. Moreover, the court concluded that the FCPA and money laundering claims were unconstitutionally vague as applied. See United States v. Rafoi-Bleuler, Case No. 4:17-CR-0514-7, Dkt. No. 255 (Nov. 10, 2021).