Court Rules Ross Intelligence's AI Training Infringed Reuters' Copyright
A U.S. federal judge ruled that Ross Intelligence infringed Reuters' copyright by using summaries of legal decisions from Reuters' Westlaw service to train its AI legal research platform without permission. The judge rejected Ross' argument that its use was transformative, finding instead that it directly replicated Westlaw's service for commercial gain. The ruling marks the first major court decision on AI copyright infringement and could affect dozens of pending AI copyright cases.
What happened
A U.S. federal judge handed down a summary judgment in a case brought by Thomson Reuters against Ross Intelligence, finding that Ross' use of Reuters' content to train its AI legal research platform infringed on Reuters' intellectual property.
Ross was accused of using headnotes — summaries of legal decisions — from Westlaw, Reuters' legal research service, to train its AI. Ross marketed its AI as a tool to analyze documents and perform query-based searches across court filings.
Reported impact
The outcome could have implications for the more than 39 copyright-related AI lawsuits currently working their way through U.S. courthouses.
At least one set of plaintiffs in another AI copyright case have asked a court to consider the judge's decision.
Index analysis
Judge Stephanos Bibas found that Ross was repackaging Westlaw headnotes in a way that directly replicated Westlaw's legal research service. The judge determined that the startup's platform didn't add new meaning, purpose, or commentary, undermining Ross' claim of transformative use.
The judge cited Ross' commercial motivations as a reason the startup's fair use defense missed the mark. Ross sought to profit from a product that competed directly with Westlaw without significant 'recontextualization' of the IP-protected material.
Governance controls
The trial will proceed to the merits stage, with Thomson Reuters awarded summary judgment at this stage of the litigation. The judge also affirmed that Ross wasn't entitled to summary judgment on some of its defenses, such as fair use and merger doctrines.
Classification
Sources and evidence
Sources not yet published
This record was researched and written by the Index from original reporting. Its sources are still being verified by an editor, and they are listed here once that check is complete. Until then the record carries no reviewer.