Litigation

State of play.

• The Musk v. OpenAI trial has moved into its remedies phase, with the advisory jury's liability findings now shaping the May 18 remedies proceeding—Brockman's diary, Musk's threat texts, and undisclosed financial ties between Brockman and Altman all entered the evidentiary record (→ Brockman's Diary Revealed in Musk-OpenAI Trial First Week).
• The Super Micro export control indictment has triggered a full compliance and securities litigation cascade: DOJ criminal charges against three individuals for diverting $2.5 billion in AI servers to China, parallel SEC and auditor reviews, and investor class actions—all against a company with a prior Nasdaq delisting and SEC accounting charges (→ DOJ export indictment triggers new probe of Super Micro’s controls).
• AI-generated hallucinations in court filings have crossed from cautionary tale to active contempt risk, with a New Jersey federal court moving toward contempt proceedings against counsel who failed to pay AI-related sanctions in the Combs civil litigation .
• Dua Lipa's $15 million suit against Samsung tests the outer boundary of right-of-publicity and Lanham Act false endorsement claims, with Samsung's response to a dismissed cease-and-desist now framing the consent and licensing defenses that will define the case (→ Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15M over unauthorized TV ad image use).
• For counsel advising technology companies, law firms, or litigators deploying AI tools, the practical baseline is: AI governance litigation is live at trial, AI use in practice carries escalating contempt risk beyond mere sanctions, export control enforcement on advanced AI hardware is now a securities litigation trigger, and celebrity image rights are being litigated aggressively in federal court.

Where things stand.

• AI privilege doctrine is unsettled and circuit-split. Judge Rakoff's SDNY ruling in United States v. Heppner holds that consumer AI platforms destroy privilege and work product protection; a Michigan magistrate reached the opposite conclusion treating AI as a neutral tool—leaving the question ripe for appellate clarification .
• AI sanctions for hallucinated citations are now a standard enforcement mechanism, with contempt as the next escalation. Courts in Oregon, Pennsylvania, the Seventh Circuit, and the Eastern District of North Carolina have all imposed financial penalties or required remediation; a New Jersey court is moving toward contempt for unpaid AI sanctions in the Combs civil litigation .
• BIPA damages exposure has been structurally reset. The Seventh Circuit's retroactive application of the 2024 per-person damages cap in Clay v. Union Pacific eliminates per-scan multipliers for all pending cases in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin .
• Privacy standing doctrine is tightening. The Central District of California dismissed all eight counts in a privacy suit against Paramount Skydance under TransUnion, requiring concrete historical harm—not statutory violation or speculative future injury .
• CIPA website-tracking litigation remains a high-volume threat with unsettled doctrine. A growing number of suits target website pixels and analytics tools; the California Court of Appeal has a pending case that could resolve whether CIPA's pen register framework applies to routine web technologies .
• VPPA pixel class actions face a strengthened Second Circuit defense. The "ordinary person" test for personally identifiable information has been applied to defeat multiple pixel-based claims, though plaintiffs are shifting to more favorable circuits .
• The Seventh Amendment's reach into agency adjudication is expanding. Jarkesy challenges have migrated to state administrative proceedings in Delaware and Arizona, testing whether state constitutional jury-trial protections parallel the federal ruling .
• Colorado's AI Act is stayed and its legislative future is unresolved. A federal magistrate froze enforcement of SB24-205 after xAI sued and DOJ intervened on Equal Protection grounds; the Colorado legislature has adjourned, leaving any successor statute uncertain and the underlying constitutional claims live (→ DOJ Intervenes in xAI Lawsuit to Block Colorado's AI Discrimination Law[1][2][3]).
• Patent disclosure forfeits trade secret protection. The Federal Circuit's ruling in International Medical Devices v. Cornell holds that designs disclosed in publicly available patents are "generally known" and ineligible for trade secret status under California's UTSA—a structural constraint on dual-protection IP strategies .
• AI hiring tool class action against Workday has survived to class certification. Mobley v. Workday carries certified ADEA claims for applicants over 40 since 2020, establishing viable disparate impact and agency liability theories against AI screening vendors .
• DPPA standing is the dispositive battleground in federal suits. The Southern District of Florida dismissed a DPPA class action against a parking enforcement company for lack of concrete injury, while parallel DPPA cases in Maryland continue surviving dismissal—courts are distinguishing between data commercialization models without a uniform circuit standard .
• New York's AVOID Act imposes a 90-day hard deadline for third-party impleader in cases commenced after April 18, 2026, with no post-Note of Issue impleader absent good cause—construction and premises liability practices face the sharpest immediate impact .

Latest developments.

• Dua Lipa filed a $15 million federal suit against Samsung alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, right-of-publicity violations, and Lanham Act false endorsement over a manipulated backstage photograph used on TV packaging and global marketing materials without consent; Samsung dismissed her cease-and-desist and has not publicly responded (→ Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15M over unauthorized TV ad image use).
• Southern District of Florida dismissed a DPPA class action against a parking enforcement company with prejudice for lack of Article III standing, rejecting privacy intrusion, emotional distress, and annoyance as insufficiently concrete where the plaintiff owed and paid the underlying charge .
• New Jersey federal court issued a contempt show-cause order against counsel in the Combs civil litigation who missed payments on a $6,000 AI-citation sanctions order—signaling courts are escalating beyond monetary penalties for AI misconduct .

Active questions and open splits.

• AI privilege: tool or third party? Heppner (SDNY) and Warner v. Gilbarco (Michigan) reached opposite conclusions within days of each other. Whether inputting privileged information into a consumer AI platform destroys privilege is unresolved at the appellate level—the question is ripe for circuit intervention .
• AI sanctions to contempt: where does the enforcement escalation stop? The New Jersey contempt proceeding against the Combs civil counsel signals courts are no longer treating unpaid AI sanctions as a cost of doing business. Whether contempt becomes the standard response to non-compliance—and what due process protections attach—is unresolved .
• Musk v. OpenAI: what legal weight do founder agreements carry? The trial tests whether informal commitments at founding can support breach of contract or fraud claims when a company converts from nonprofit to for-profit. Brockman's financial entanglements with Altman add a fiduciary duty overlay that could reshape governance expectations for dual-structure AI entities (→ Brockman's Diary Revealed in Musk-OpenAI Trial First Week).
• Export control enforcement as a securities litigation trigger. The Super Micro indictment—against a company with prior compliance failures—raises the question of what disclosure obligations attach when a company is aware of export control vulnerabilities but has not yet been charged. The intersection of DOJ criminal enforcement, SEC review, and investor class actions is becoming a standard cascade (→ DOJ export indictment triggers new probe of Super Micro’s controls).
• Right of publicity and Lanham Act false endorsement: what does Samsung's defense look like? The Dua Lipa case tests whether a consumer electronics company can use a celebrity's owned photograph on product packaging without triggering endorsement liability, and whether dismissing a cease-and-desist while continuing distribution affects damages exposure (→ Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15M over unauthorized TV ad image use).
• DPPA standing: what injury is sufficient? The Southern District of Florida dismissed for lack of concrete injury while parallel DPPA cases in Maryland survive dismissal. Courts are distinguishing between different data commercialization models, but the circuit-level standard for what constitutes a cognizable DPPA injury remains unsettled .
• Patent-trade secret dual protection: where is the line? The Federal Circuit's ruling in International Medical Devices v. Cornell forecloses trade secret claims on patent-disclosed designs, but the boundary between disclosed and non-disclosed elements of a broader technology portfolio remains a drafting and litigation challenge—particularly in medtech and semiconductor contexts .

What to watch.

• Musk v. OpenAI remedies phase proceeding targeted for May 18—watch for findings on whether Brockman's financial ties to Altman constitute a disqualifying conflict and how the court structures any injunctive or monetary relief (→ Brockman's Diary Revealed in Musk-OpenAI Trial First Week).
• Anthropic's copyright settlement fairness hearing in San Francisco—approval could establish the first damages framework for AI training data disputes and set the template for pending AI copyright litigation (→ Anthropic argues Claude's copyright use is transformative fair use in CA court).
• Super Micro independent investigation by Munger Tolles and AlixPartners—scope and findings will determine whether management knowledge allegations escalate into corporate-level charges and whether BDO's adverse internal controls opinion triggers further SEC action (→ DOJ export indictment triggers new probe of Super Micro’s controls).
• Samsung's response to the Dua Lipa complaint—its consent, licensing, and fair use arguments will define the defense posture for celebrity image rights claims in mass-market consumer goods (→ Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15M over unauthorized TV ad image use).
• Colorado constitutional claims on AI anti-discrimination law—with the legislature adjourned and no successor statute enacted, the underlying First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection challenges proceed toward merits briefing (→ DOJ Intervenes in xAI Lawsuit to Block Colorado's AI Discrimination Law[1][2][3]).
• Mobley v. Workday litigation trajectory—the certified ADEA class and surviving disparate impact theory create settlement pressure; watch for any damages framework that becomes the benchmark for AI hiring tool vendor liability .