Book-class plaintiffs withdraw reliance on 'market dilution' expert paper in OpenAI copyright MDL
2 de out. de 2026 · Coletado automaticamente de fontes públicas. Não revisado por uma pessoa.
Este item só está disponível no idioma original (inglês).
What happened: On Friday Oct 2, the Book Class Plaintiffs in *In re OpenAI MDL Litigation* filed a notice of non-opposition to OpenAI's motion to strike their supplemental expert report of Michael Lasinski and its reliance on a 'market dilution' generative-AI paper by Dr. Tuhin Chakrabarty et al. OpenAI had alleged plaintiffs' counsel Susman Godfrey secretly funded Chakrabarty's research; the plaintiffs dispute that characterization but agree to withdraw reliance on the paper and the supplemental report, saying the paper is cumulative of other evidence already in the record.
Why it matters to creators: This paper was the authors' expert evidence on AI market-dilution harm — the fourth-factor (market effect) theory that Judge Chhabria in *Kadrey v. Meta* flagged as the argument that could let plaintiffs beat a fair-use defense. Withdrawing it weakens the authors' damages and market-impact case heading toward the early-2027 hearing.
Not yet known: Whether the court formally grants the motion to strike; how the authors' remaining market-impact evidence holds up without this plank.
Fontes
- Book Plaintiffs "will withdraw their reliance on" Tuhin Chakrabarty et al. "dilution" paper. Do not oppose OpenAI's motion to strike it. — Chat GPT Is Eating the World (secondary)