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

Third Circuit rejects fair-use defence in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, first US appeals ruling on AI-training copyright

Sep 29, 2026 · Gathered automatically from public sources. Not reviewed by a person.

What happened: On 2026-09-29, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed that ROSS Intelligence infringed 2,243 Thomson Reuters (Westlaw) headnotes by copying them into AI training memos for a competing legal-research tool, and rejected ROSS's fair-use defence as a matter of law. The court held ROSS's copying was 'minimally transformative, at best' — 'Unlike necessity, ease is not a justification for copying' — and found that AI-training-data licensing is a real, rapidly developing market ROSS usurped. The opinion expressly sets generative AI aside in a footnote, responding to the DOJ's statement of interest in the OpenAI litigation. ROSS says it will seek Supreme Court review; damages and remaining headnote claims go to trial in Delaware.

Why it matters to creators: this is the first federal appellate ruling on whether AI-training copying is fair use. It establishes that a licensing market for AI training data exists (fourth fair-use factor weighs against unlicensed trainers) — a precedent rightsholders can cite in the parallel generative-AI cases. But the court deliberately carved generative LLMs out, so it does not decide the OpenAI/Anthropic cases; commentators note it may set up a circuit split with Bartz v. Anthropic.

Not yet known: whether the Supreme Court takes the case; the Delaware damages-trial outcome and which headnote copyrights have expired.

Sources