Tech Cases Bot

@tech

Real-time updates on the latest cases in tech. Curated by The Verge. Hosted by @free.law. Also at @techcases@mastodon.social and @techcases_bot

5 Folgt584 Follower12.501 Posts

Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir tech.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 16d

New filing: "U.S. v. Google LLC (Dep't of Justice Search Monopoly)" Doc #1535: Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance Download PDF | View Full Case #CL18552824

Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 16d

New filing: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. APPLE INC. (Department of Justice sues Apple for antitrust violations.)" Doc #480: Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Parties Download PDF | View Full Case #CL68362334

Thumbnail of page 2 of the PDF linked above.

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 16d

New filing: "Kadrey v. Meta (Book authors sue over LLaMa training)" Doc #775: CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING TIME RE 7/31/2026 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2026 at 10:00 AM… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67569326

The entry's text: CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING TIME RE 7/31/2026 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2026 at 10:00 AM by Videoconference Only. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 17d

New filing: "Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists sue over AI image training)" Doc #678: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Based on the parties' representations in the most recent joint status report and at… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL66732129

The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Based on the parties' representations in the most recent joint status report and at yesterday's discovery status conference, the Court orders as follows: with respect to Plaintiff Andersen, where Defendants have identified specific gaps in her production regarding art-related revenue, Andersen shall respond in writing no later than July 28, 2026 explaining the reasonable steps she has undertaken to investigate and identify responsive information, including what, if any, contact she has had with third-parties. To the extent that she has objected to third-party discovery requests served by Defendants which might have otherwise revealed similar responsive information, the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether it is appropriate for Plaintiff Andersen to withdraw those objections on certain terms, such as a first look process or some other mutually agreeable provision(s). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2026) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 17d

New filing: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. APPLE INC. (Department of Justice sues Apple for antitrust violations.)" Doc #479: Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL68362334

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 17d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #495: Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Thumbnail of page 3 of the PDF linked above.

Thumbnail of page 4 of the PDF linked above.

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 17d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #494: Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 17d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #493: Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 20d

New filing: "Epic v. Google (Play antitrust)" Doc #829: NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Kyle W. Mach, no longer appearing on behalf of Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited, Google… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL17443962

The entry's text: NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Kyle W. Mach, no longer appearing on behalf of Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited, Google LLC, Google Payment Corp. in this case (Mach, Kyle) (Filed on 7/22/2026) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 20d

New filing: "In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Transferred Antitrust Case)" Doc #1236: Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings Download PDF | View Full Case #CL59195373

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 20d

New filing: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. APPLE INC. (Department of Justice sues Apple for antitrust violations.)" Doc #475: TEXT ORDER: In light of the Special Master's letter (ECF 472 ), the Court deems the dispute… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL68362334

The entry's text: TEXT ORDER: In light of the Special Master's letter (ECF 472 ), the Court deems the dispute referred at ECF 462 resolved without the need for any ruling. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre on 7/21/26. (LM, ) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 21d

New filing: "Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists sue over AI image training)" Doc #673: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: As the Court resolved Plaintiffs and Runway's dispute regarding Runway's interrogatory… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL66732129

The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: As the Court resolved Plaintiffs and Runway's dispute regarding Runway's interrogatory responses in its 648 Order, the corrected docket entry at 652 is resolved. The Court GRANTS the 651 administrative sealing motion. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2026) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 21d

New filing: "X Corp. v. Media Matters for America (Was X defamed for MM claiming advertisers were shown next to antisemitic posts?)" Doc #338: Memorandum Opinion and Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL68023366

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 22d

New filing: "U.S. v. Google LLC (Dep't of Justice Search Monopoly)" Doc #1533: Status Report Download PDF | View Full Case #CL18552824

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 23d

New filing: "Kadrey v. Meta (Book authors sue over LLaMa training)" Doc #773: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Further Case Management Conference held via Zoom on 7/20/2026. Documents to be… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67569326

The entry's text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Further Case Management Conference held via Zoom on 7/20/2026. Documents to be produced for the following witnesses, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Shea, and Mr. Strain, by Thursday. Depositions to take place as scheduled. For the remaining 7 witnesses, documents must be produced within at least 4 calendar days prior to the scheduled depositions. Depositions will still take place if the documents are not produced timely. Depositions may be reopened based on additional documents that were produced later. Anyone who was not a document custodian in Kadrey who is being deposed, will have the same deadline of producing their documents no later than 4 calendar days prior to the scheduled depositions. Case schedule/discussion re how to proceed in Sullivan to occur at the next case management conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/29/2026. Statement does not need to abide by the formatting requirements. Parties may file a joint statement. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2026 at 01:30 PM by Videoconference Only. Total Time in Court: 1 hour. Court Reporter: Kendra Steppler. Plaintiff Attorney: Margaux Poueymirou, Annabel Weinbach (Kadrey), Moez Kaba, Harlye Carlton (Entrepreneur), Elizabeth Brannen, Kyle Roche, Lauren Martin (Chicken Soup, Cambronne, Cognella). Defendant Attorney: Karen Dunn, Jessica Phillips, Bobby Ghajar, Mark Weinstein, Phil Morton, Kyle Smith. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/20/2026) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 23d

New filing: "U.S. v. Google LLC (Dep't of Justice Search Monopoly)" Doc #1532: Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance Download PDF | View Full Case #CL18552824

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 24d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #485: Pretrial Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 24d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #484: Pretrial Conference Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 24d

New filing: "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC (Authors v. Anthropic copyright suit)" Doc #680: Judgment AND Order AND Terminate Civil Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions Download PDF | View Full Case #CL69058235

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 27d

New filing: "In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Transferred Antitrust Case)" Doc #1235: Status Conference Download PDF | View Full Case #CL59195373

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 28d

New filing: "Many AGs v. Meta (Child Safety Suit)" Doc #480: Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67908468

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 28d

New filing: "Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists sue over AI image training)" Doc #659: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Plaintiffs are admonished for failing to comply with Judge Cisneros's Civil Standing Order,… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL66732129

The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Plaintiffs are admonished for failing to comply with Judge Cisneros's Civil Standing Order, which requires parties to file joint discovery letter briefs, or, "[i]n the rare instance that a joint letter is not possible," requires the party filing a unilateral letter to "include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible." Future discovery briefs that do not comply with the Standing Order may be stricken or denied as procedurally improper. That being said, the Court concludes that it will best serve the overall progression of this case to resolve the issue raised in Plaintiffs' 642 letter brief on the merits, and accordingly ORDERS Stability to file its response to Plaintiffs' portion of the 642 letter brief by July 22, 2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2026) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 28d

New filing: "Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists sue over AI image training)" Doc #660: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Midjourney's 621 discovery brief regarding Midjourney's… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL66732129

The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Midjourney's 621 discovery brief regarding Midjourney's clawback of documents and rules as follows: the Court agrees with Midjourney that the substance of Ms. Ali's responses to CFC's questions in Exhibit D and E reflect work product and may remain redacted. However, CFC's questions in Exhibits A, B, D, and E are not work product and not covered by the attorney-client privilege and must be produced in unredacted form. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Midjourney's redactions of its communications with Zyte were improper, as these communications were made "to further a commercial transaction" between Midjourney and Zyte and were not "made in the course of formulating a common legal strategy." Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 579-89 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (emphasis removed, internal quotations omitted). Midjourney shall produce Exhibit G in unredacted form. Plaintiffs may reopen Ms. Ali's deposition for half an hour on the record to question her about the communications with Zyte. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2026) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 28d

New filing: "U.S. v. Google LLC (Dep't of Justice Search Monopoly)" Doc #1531: Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance Download PDF | View Full Case #CL18552824

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 28d

New filing: "U.S. v. Google LLC (Dep't of Justice Search Monopoly)" Doc #1531-1: Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Download PDF | View Full Case #CL18552824

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 29d

New filing: "Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists sue over AI image training)" Doc #653: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Runway's 645 letter brief regarding Plaintiffs'… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL66732129

The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Runway's 645 letter brief regarding Plaintiffs' responses to Interrogatory No. 13. Broadly speaking, the Court agrees with Runway that Plaintiffs must do more to identify their customers and update their interrogatories accordingly. A party has "an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its discovery responses," and is "generally charged with knowledge of what its agents know, or what is in records available to it." Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 680 (C.D. Cal. 2009); F.D.I.C. v. Halpern, 271 F.R.D. 191, 193 (D. Nev. 2010). "A party cannot limit its interrogatory answers to matters within its own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to it or under its control." Halpern, 271 F.R.D. at 193. Consistent with these principles, Plaintiffs must respond to Interrogatory No. 13 fully, based on information within their own knowledge and information that is reasonably accessible, including information possessed by their agents or otherwise under Plaintiffs' control. However, the Court is cognizant of the burden on Plaintiffs. Unlike Plaintiffs' requests to Runway, which required Runway to identify and provide information about a discrete list of 84 enterprise partners, Runway wants Plaintiffs to identify all customers for their Asserted Works since 2020. As Plaintiffs explain, providing this information would be unduly burdensome and thus run afoul of Rule 26(b). ECF No. 645 at 6. The parties are accordingly ordered to meet and confer to identify a narrow subset or subsets of customers (for example, based on type of customer, timeframe, or revenue) that each Plaintiff must identify, and Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses accordingly. The parties shall meet and confer by July 17, 2026, and Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses within fourteen days of the conclusion of their conferral efforts. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2026) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 29d

New filing: "New York Times v. Microsoft (AI copyright lawsuit)" Doc #1435: Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings Download PDF | View Full Case #CL68117049

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 29d

New filing: "Kadrey v. Meta (Book authors sue over LLaMa training)" Doc #771: CLERK'S NOTICE PROVIDING ZOOM ACCESS AND REQUIRING ADVANCED REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL RE 7/20/2026 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL67569326

The entry's text: CLERK'S NOTICE PROVIDING ZOOM ACCESS AND REQUIRING ADVANCED REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL RE 7/20/2026 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at vccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than July 17, 2026 at 2:00 PM PST.Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.),. (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 29d

New filing: "In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Transferred Antitrust Case)" Doc #1233: ORDER. With the parties' withdrawal of the joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1232, the… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL59195373

The entry's text: ORDER. With the parties' withdrawal of the joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1232, the evidentiary hearing set for July 16, 2026, is vacated. A status conference will be held in lieu of the evidence hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of Google's compliance with the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1017, and the implementation of the remedies that were ordered. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/15/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Tech Cases Bot@tech· 29d

New filing: "In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Transferred Antitrust Case)" Doc #1227: Clerk's Notice re Deadline for Ordering Daily Transcript and/or Realtime Reporting:The deadline to request daily… [full entry below 👇] Download PDF | View Full Case #CL59195373