AI Race Sparks Antitrust and Copyright Suits

It both rivals and compounds the transformation brought to us by advancements in computing technology, mobile technology, and the internet. The rapid evolution and commercialization of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has also sparked litigation. Cases we are tracking focus on allegations of rental rate and price collusion in violation of antitrust laws and improper use of original works in violation of copyright laws.

Other suits (not covered here) focus not on the use of the technology, but the promises made to investors about the value of its use, leading to claims of securities fraud. Still other concerns are raised in the context of privacy, law enforcement, and discrimination. At least one employment age discrimination suit is pending in federal court in San Francisco.

Given the extent to which AI is already changing the way we produce various types of works and conduct data analytics, this is certainly just the beginning. More than a decade’s worth of acquisitions by big players in tech will only add fuel to litigation (Read our post, titled Big Tech’s Decade of AI Shopping and see our list of acquisitions). Below are a handful of cases that fall into the categories of antitrust and copyright law. We provide brief descriptions with links to more detailed reports.

Antitrust

Multifamily Rental Housing Litigation Against RealPage
In Re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Case No. 3:23-md-3071, M.D.Tenn.

Individual plaintiffs who rented multifamily living spaces beginning in 2016 filed numerous lawsuits against RealPage, Inc., alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. RealPage provides revenue management software and services to multifamily housing owners and property managers. Plaintiffs assert that multifamily rental housing markets across the United States have been adversely affected by an unlawful, horizontal price-fixing conspiracy involving RealPage and multifamily housing property owners and managers. The alleged conspiracy is facilitated through RealPage’s revenue management software. According to the plaintiffs, horizontal competitor properties delegate their pricing decisions to RealPage, which then amalgamates these competitors’ commercially sensitive pricing and supply data to set prices for units within the competitors’ properties. By aggregating their sensitive pricing and supply data within RealPage’s software, horizontal competitors allegedly conspired to fix prices in the multifamily rental housing market. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred several actions to the Middle District of Tennessee.

Read our latest update.

Multifamily Rental Housing Litigation Against Yardi
In Re Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL, W.D.Wash.

Litigation of a proposed class action against Yardi Systems, Inc. and dozens of major landlords accusing them of using Yardi’s RENTmaximizer software to fix rental prices nationwide is pending in U.S. District Court for Washington’s Western District. Like the plaintiffs in the RealPage litigation, the plaintiffs allege the software facilitates collusion by sharing sensitive data and automating inflated pricing, eliminating competition and driving up rents by 6% on average. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. The case highlights growing scrutiny of algorithmic pricing, with parallels to a DOJ investigation into similar practices by Yardi’s competitor, RealPage. As of June 2025, briefing on class action certification was under way.

Read more.

Health Providers Sue MultiPlan and Insurers, Case Survives Summary Judgment
In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, No. 24-C-6795, N.D. Ill.

A federal judge in Chicago has rejected efforts to dismiss an antitrust case brought by healthcare providers against MultiPlan, Inc. and a group of health insurers over the shared use of MultiPlan’s algorithmic pricing platform. Plaintiffs allege the service is used to limit the amount insurers pay for claims. The court addressed whether insurance companies, including Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and Blue Cross Blue Shield members, could be held liable for antitrust violations. Judge Kennelly found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserting a horizontal hub-and-spokes price-fixing agreement facilitated by MultiPlan. The insurers allegedly suppressed payments for out-of-network healthcare services by aligning rates and sharing sensitive pricing information. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, allowing the case to proceed.

Read more.

Room Rate Litigation Against Cendyn and Casino Hotels
Gibson v. Cendyn Group LLC, No. 24-3576, 9th Cir.; No. 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA, D.Nev.

Consumers sued a group of Las Vegas hotels for price collusion, arguing they shared algorithmic analysis provided by the Rainmaker Group, a subsidiary of Cendyn Group LLC, to artificially inflate room rates. However, their suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada which determined that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a tacit agreement between the hotel operators to use the Rainmaker algorithm for anti-competitive purposes. The court noted that the hotels joined the pricing service at various times and were not obligated to follow the software’s pricing suggestions. Plaintiffs Richard Gibson and Roberto Manzo appealed the dismissal of their Sherman Act vertical antitrust claims to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has intervened in this case (in addition to others), arguing that pricing algorithms can amplify collusion, asserting that optionality does not absolve anticompetitive behavior. The Ninth Circuit could set an important precedent for shared use of algorithmic pricing systems.

Read more.

Hotel Guests Appeal Dismissal of Price-Fixing Case
Cornish-Adebiyi, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-CV-02536-KMW-EAP, D. N.J.

In Cornish-Adebiyi, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al., hotel room consumers allege a price-fixing conspiracy among Atlantic City casino-hotels, facilitated by pricing software from Cendyn Group, LLC (formerly Rainmaker), in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A federal judge in New Jersey dismissed the amended complaint, citing a lack of direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence of agreement. Plaintiffs relied on “parallel conduct,” but the 14-year span over which the software was adopted and the lack of shared proprietary data undermined claims of a coordinated conspiracy. The court also highlighted distinctions from cases like In re RealPage, Inc., where competitors pooled confidential data. It concluded that the alleged “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy lacked a “rim” and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Now on appeal before the Third Circuit, the case has drawn several amicus curiae briefs.

Construction Company Sues Equipment Rental Outlets
Dwight Roberts Construction, et al. v. Rouse Services LLC, et al., No. 2:25-cv-04031, C.D. Calif.

Dwight Roberts Construction Company filed a proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing major construction equipment rental companies and Rouse Services LLC of colluding to fix rental prices nationwide. The complaint alleges that Rouse Services facilitated a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy by collecting competitively sensitive data and enforcing coordinated pricing strategies, leading to artificially inflated rates. Defendants include United Rentals, Sunbelt Rentals, HERC Rentals, The Home Depot, and others. The construction company seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The case has the potential to reshape pricing practices in the construction equipment rental industry.

Publisher Says Google’s Use of Proprietary Data for AI Training is an Abuse of Its Dominance
Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00543, D. D.C.

Chegg, Inc. sued Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., alleging antitrust violations and unjust enrichment. Filed Feb. 25, 2025, the case centers on Google’s use of Chegg’s proprietary educational content to train its AI models and generate AI-powered search results, such as AI Overviews, without compensation. Chegg argues that Google’s practices harm competition, reduce traffic to publishers’ websites, and threaten the production of high-quality educational content. The lawsuit highlights Google’s alleged abuse of its monopoly in General Search Services to coerce publishers into providing content for AI training and republishing. Chegg claims this conduct undermines the digital publishing ecosystem, depriving publishers of revenue and consumers of reliable information. Google is in the process of filing its answer and a renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (as of July 11, 2025). Google is facing the same allegations in Europe.

Read more.

Copyright

Several high-profile lawsuits have emerged in the U.S. challenging the use of copyrighted materials and personal data to train AI large language models.

Publishers Sue Cohere Inc.
Advance Local Media LLC, et al. v. Cohere Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01305-CM, S.D.N.Y.

Advance Local Media LLC, Conde Nast, The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC, and other publishers allege Cohere used copyrighted articles without permission to train its AI enterprise solutions. Outputs allegedly include “verbatim copies,” “substantial excerpts,” or “substitutive summaries” of the publishers’ works. Cohere has moved to dismiss saying the publishers have not alleged direct infringement. It also argues that summarizing information is not infringement. The company says the case should focus on the central issue of whether its training of large language models, or LLMs, constitutes fair use under copyright law.

Read more.

Artists Sue Stability AI and Others
Sarah Andersen, et al. v. Stability AI Ltd., et al., No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO, N.D.Calif.

A group of artists sued Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for using their artwork – billions of images — in training datasets, citing copyright infringement, Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations, and false endorsement. This visual generative AI case is set for trial in 2027.

Read more.

Software Developers Sue GitHub, Microsoft, OpenAI
Does v. GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI, No. 4:22-cv-07074-JST, N.D.Calif.; No. 24-6136, 9th Cir.

Developers claim GitHub Copilot was trained on open-source code in violation of license terms. In May 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims of copyright infringement due to lack of specific examples of copied code. Claims alleging breach of contract and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) survived. The case is on appeal, the outcome of which could impact AI’s “fair use” of open-source materials and the enforceability of open-source licenses in the context of machine learning.

Read more.

Authors Sue Meta
Kadrey et al. v. Meta, No. 3:23-cv-03417, N.D. Calif.

Authors allege in a proposed class action that Meta used their works to train its large language models, the group of which they refer to as Llama, raising issues of copyright infringement and unfair competition. The suit contends that copyrighted works were included in the training data without the authors’ consent, violating intellectual property laws and undermining their ability to control the distribution of their works. Meta maintains that the training data was sourced from publicly available information, and that its actions fall within the boundaries of fair use. The authors counter that such use constitutes exploitation of their creative output, resulting in financial and reputational harm. The case is in the summary judgment phase, with the legal dispute centering on whether the use of copyrighted materials for AI training purposes can be justified under the doctrine of fair use, a decision that could set a significant precedent for the tech and publishing industries alike.

Read more.

Conclusion

Mogin Law LLP will continue to add to this list and welcomes input from readers who wish to share information on artificial intelligence litigation.

Edited by Tom Hagy. Last update: July 11, 2025.