US appeals court upholds Thomson Reuters' landmark win in AI training lawsuit

Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST

Sept 29 : A US appeals court on Tuesday upheld a ruling for information services company Thomson Reuters in its copyright dispute with former legal-research rival Ross Intelligence over Ross' alleged misuse of copyrighted material to train an AI-powered legal search engine.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Ross' argument that its search engine made fair use of material from Thomson Reuters' Westlaw platform, a first-of-its-kind ruling by a U.S. appeals court in a wave of high-stakes copyright cases over AI training.

The appeals court's reasoning for its decision is currently sealed.

Thomson Reuters is the parent company of Reuters News.

CNA Games

Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time

Buzzword
Create words using the given letters

Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser

Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge

Word Search
Spot as many words as you can
Show More
Show Less

Thomson Reuters' 2020 lawsuit accused legal research company Ross Intelligence of copying Westlaw's "headnotes," which summarize points of law in court opinions. It accused Ross of misusing thousands of headnotes to train its competing AI-based legal search engine.

Ross shut down its platform in 2021, citing the costs of Thomson Reuters' litigation. 

Authors, news outlets, music labels and others have filed dozens of lawsuits against tech companies over the unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train AI systems. Thomson Reuters' case is the first copyright dispute over AI training to be heard by a US appeals court, though unlike those disputes, Thomson Reuters' case does not involve generative AI - artificial intelligence that creates new content.

Ross allegedly used Thomson Reuters' headnotes to train its search engine to identify relevant court opinions in response to user queries. The company argued that its AI training made fair use of the headnotes, raising a pivotal defense for legal disputes over AI training. 

Tech companies have argued that generative AI systems make fair use of the copyrighted material they are trained on by transforming it into something new, while copyright owners say the companies use their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods.

A federal judge in Delaware federal court rejected Ross' fair use defense last year, prompting Ross' appeal. 

"Ross took the headnotes to make it easier to develop a competing legal research tool," the judge said. "So Ross’s use is not transformative."

Newsletter

Week in Review

Subscribe to our Chief Editor’s Week in Review

Our chief editor shares analysis and picks of the week's biggest news every Saturday.

Sign up for our newsletters

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Subscribe here

Get the CNA app

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Download here

Get WhatsApp alerts

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

Join here