The legal front around AI widened in 2026, moving beyond the original training-data copyright suits into discovery fights, answer-engine cases, and the first rulings on whether model weights are infringing copies. Nothing here is settled law yet, but the direction matters for anyone training on or building with third-party content. Note that court statuses change quickly; the items below reflect the record as researched and each should be checked against the live docket before relying on it.

What happened

The New York Times and other news plaintiffs filed a motion on 9 July 2026 asking the court to sanction OpenAI, alleging it deleted ChatGPT logs in violation of a preservation order (case 1:23-cv-11195, S.D.N.Y.). It is a filed motion, not a ruling, but it is the first major spoliation fight in the flagship AI-copyright case.

In Bartz v. Anthropic (N.D. Cal.), the roughly $1.5 billion settlement, which would be the largest US copyright settlement ever, had its final approval hearing on 14 May 2026 and was taken under submission; final approval had not been entered as of the latest available record. Meanwhile the litigation broadened: Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster sued OpenAI (13 March), BMG sued Anthropic (17 March), and CNN sued Perplexity (28 May), pushing the fight into reference works, music, and answer engines. In the UK, the Getty v. Stability AI judgment (November 2025) held that model weights are not “infringing copies” while finding limited trademark infringement, with an appeal window in early 2026. On the regulatory side, Ireland’s Data Protection Commission opened a GDPR inquiry into X and xAI on 17 February 2026 over non-consensual deepfakes generated by Grok.

Why it matters for builders

Two practical signals. First, provenance and retention are now legal exposure. The OpenAI sanctions fight is about deleted logs; if you build a product on top of an LLM, how you log, retain, and can produce records is becoming a discovery question. Second, the “is training fair use” question is still open, and it is now being tested across text, music, reference works, and answer engines at once, so a ruling in any one case could ripple.

The Getty UK holding, that weights are not copies, is an early data point favouring model builders on one narrow question, but it is under appeal and is UK law only. The safe posture is unchanged: know the provenance of your training and retrieval data, keep records, and treat “fair use will protect us” as an unsettled bet. Pair this with the regulatory compliance checklist .

Sources

Further reading