Court Strikes Susman Godfrey Report in OpenAI Copyright MDL
Is this a scandal?
No longer — the story has resolved. Noise 37/100, holding steady, across 1 source.
Plaintiffs will likely seek alternative independent experts or appeal the exclusion order because losing this report significantly weakens their current technical theory of infringement.
Noise 37/100 — louder than 97% of tracked AI controversies.
Why it matters
The ruling restricts how plaintiffs can fund expert testimony in AI copyright cases, potentially raising the financial barrier for future litigation against well-resourced tech defendants.
Key points
- Federal judge excluded an expert report allegedly funded by Susman Godfrey LLP in the OpenAI copyright MDL.
- OpenAI and Microsoft successfully argued the funding arrangement compromised the report's required independence.
- The ruling removes a central piece of technical evidence supporting plaintiffs' infringement allegations.
- Decision imposes stricter disclosure standards for attorney-funded expert analyses in AI litigation.
- Plaintiffs must now restructure their evidentiary strategy without the excluded technical assessment.
The story
A federal judge has granted a motion by OpenAI and Microsoft to exclude an expert report allegedly funded by plaintiffs’ counsel Susman Godfrey LLP in the multidistrict copyright infringement litigation. The court determined that the funding arrangement compromised the report’s independence, rendering it inadmissible as evidence. This decision represents a significant procedural victory for the defense in the sprawling case concerning unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training. Plaintiffs had relied on the analysis to support claims of systemic infringement across large language model development. The exclusion forces the remaining plaintiffs to restructure their evidentiary strategy without this specific technical assessment. Legal analysts note that the ruling establishes stricter scrutiny for third-party funding disclosures in complex technology disputes. Both OpenAI and Microsoft denied wrongdoing throughout the proceedings. Susman Godfrey has not publicly commented on the court’s adverse finding regarding its financial involvement.
Who's involved
Allegedly funded the excluded report to support plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims
Relied on the now-excluded report to demonstrate systemic unauthorized use of copyrighted works
Argued the expert report was inadmissible due to improper funding by opposing counsel
Joined OpenAI in challenging the report's independence and evidentiary validity
How the conversation shifted
Polarity (0–100) from the noise pipeline, sampled over time.
Noise Level
The timeline
Court grants motion to strike expert report
Judge excludes Susman Godfrey-funded analysis from OpenAI copyright MDL evidence
The full record
Sources & methodology
- bsky.app — bsky.app
Every claim above traces to these primary items. How we score →
The forecast
Plaintiffs will likely seek alternative independent experts or appeal the exclusion order because losing this report significantly weakens their current technical theory of infringement.
Forecast, not fact — an editorial estimate we score when this resolves.
That's the complete picture as of — nothing more to know right now. We'll update this page the moment it changes.
Join the Discussion
Discuss this story
Community comments coming in a future update
Be the first to share your perspective. Subscribe to comment.