Skip to content

Analytics cookies

We use Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager to count visits and see which pages are useful. If you accept, Google Analytics may set cookies to recognise your return visits. If you decline, it sets no cookies, but Google still receives a cookieless signal for each page you view. We don’t send Google your name, email address or registration details, and you can change your choice at any time under “Cookie settings” at the bottom of the page. Privacy

Judge grants leave for 55 amicus briefs in OpenAI copyright MDL; briefs deemed filed

Nov 6, 2026 · Gathered automatically from public sources. Not reviewed by a person.

What happened

On 6 November 2026, US District Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York granted 55 motions seeking leave to file amicus curiae briefs in *In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation*, the consolidated copyright litigation against OpenAI. The court noted that no objections had been received to the applications, directed that the proposed briefs be deemed filed, and directed the clerk to close the corresponding docket entries.

Who filed

The applicants span publishers, authors, technology companies, AI firms, academics and public-policy groups, including the Association of American Publishers, Authors Alliance, the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, the National Newspaper Association, PEN America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Copyright Alliance. Individual applicants include actor Cate Blanchett, actor Ashley Judd, economist Joseph Stiglitz, venture capitalist Michael Moritz and technology entrepreneur Kevin Kelly. AI-industry participants include Midjourney, Runway AI, AI Startups and the AI Rights Project, alongside bodies such as the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Consumer Technology Association. Academics, copyright law professors, computer scientists, First Amendment scholars and members of Congress also sought to file.

What this does not decide

The order is procedural. By granting leave, the court allowed the applicants to place their perspectives before it; it did not rule on the substantive copyright infringement allegations or endorse any amicus argument. The earlier amicus filings themselves (late October 2026) are covered separately; this item covers only the 6 November grant order.

Sources