The adoption of artificial intelligence (“AI”) across industries in recent years is bringing with it no shortage of lawsuits, as parties look to navigate the budding legal issues that these relatively new models raise for companies and creators, alike. TFL’s AI Litigation Tracker provides a curated look at lawsuits shaping the legal and commercial rules around AI for retailers and consumer brands, spanning issues including intellectual property, advertising and digital replicas, virtual try-on and biometric data, platform access, agentic commerce, and AI-driven search and discovery.
The tracker includes litigation involving fashion, luxury, beauty, retail, and e-commerce companies, along with cases outside those industries when the legal questions at issue have meaningful implications for consumer-facing businesses. Cases are organized by filing date and reflect significant rulings and developments.
LAST UPDATED SEPT. 21, 2026 · UPDATED REGULARLY · U.S. LITIGATION
Pujols v. Rainbow USA, Inc., et al.
June 15, 2026 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · AI-generated advertising · Model rights
The issue: Whether existing model releases authorize brands to create new AI-generated depictions of models, or whether those uses require additional consent.
The case: Model Francheska Pujols alleges that Rainbow used AI to create advertising images that retained her likeness while altering elements including her clothing, body positioning, backgrounds, and poses beyond the original photographs. Rainbow argues that its model release authorizes alterations and transformations regardless of the technology used. In July 2026, the court declined to preliminarily enjoin Rainbow from using the challenged images.
Related coverage: Rainbow Says Existing Model Releases Cover AI-Generated Ads
Tranchin v. EBY, Inc.
June 9, 2026 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · AI-generated content · Digital replicas · Contract
The issue: Whether a brand’s contractual right to use and alter influencer content extends to materially different AI-generated depictions of the individual.
The case: Content creator Molly Tranchin alleged that lingerie company EBY exceeded the scope of their agreement by using AI to alter licensed content and create a depiction that she had not authorized. After EBY challenged federal subject-matter jurisdiction, Tranchin voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on August 28, 2026. There was no ruling on the merits.
Related coverage: What Happens When a Brand Uses AI to “Alter” Influencer Content?
2025
Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
November 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Agentic commerce · Platform access · Computer access
The issue: Whether and on what terms an AI agent can access a retailer’s website and act on a customer’s behalf, and what legal tools retailers can use to restrict that access.
The case: Amazon sued Perplexity over its Comet AI agent, alleging unauthorized access to password-protected portions of Amazon.com. The district court preliminarily enjoined Perplexity’s challenged conduct, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction in August 2026. The appeals court held that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its CFAA and CDAFA claims because, on the record before it, the customer, rather than Perplexity, accessed Amazon using Perplexity’s Assistant as a tool. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that its holding was limited to the statutory meaning of “access” on the record before it and did not establish a broader legal regime for agentic AI. Amazon subsequently amended its complaint with new allegations about Perplexity’s access and added a claim for tortious interference with Amazon’s customer contracts.
Related coverage: Can Brands Use Anti-Hacking Laws to Stop AI Shopping Agents? + Amazon v. Perplexity Is Testing Who Controls AI Commerce
Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo v. OpenAI, Inc., et al.
October 28, 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Trademark · AI product naming · Consumer confusion
The issue: How conventional trademark principles apply when AI companies adopt product or feature names already associated with established consumer brands.
The case: Cameo sued OpenAI over its use of “Cameo” for a Sora feature that enables users to generate videos using individuals’ likenesses. The district court preliminarily restricted OpenAI’s use of the name. OpenAI appealed the preliminary injunction in March 2026 and voluntarily dismissed the appeal in May 2026.
Reddit, Inc. v. SerpApi LLC, et al.
October 22, 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Data scraping · Platform access · DMCA
The issue: The extent to which platforms can rely on technological restrictions and the DMCA to control access to data sought for use by AI companies.
The case: Reddit alleges that Perplexity and data-scraping companies circumvented technological measures to obtain Reddit content after Perplexity declined to enter into a licensing arrangement. In July 2026, the court largely denied motions to dismiss by Perplexity and SerpApi, allowing DMCA § 1201(a)(1)(A) claims against both defendants, a § 1201(a)(2) claim against SerpApi, and civil conspiracy claims to proceed, while dismissing other claims.
Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.
September 12, 2025 · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · AI search · Antitrust · Content licensing
The issue: Whether a dominant search provider can use publisher content in AI-generated search features while effectively conditioning access to search traffic on publishers permitting that use.
The case: Penske Media alleges that Google has leveraged its dominance in search to use publisher content in AI Overviews and other AI-driven search features without meaningful compensation or the ability to opt out without sacrificing search visibility. Google and Alphabet moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2026.
Related coverage: WWD, Rolling Stone Owner Sues Google in Antitrust Test for AI Summaries; Google Aims to Shut Down Penske Media Lawsuit Over AI Search
Javid v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc.
August 25, 2025 · Illinois state court; removed to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Virtual try-on · Biometrics · Privacy
The issue: When virtual try-on technology that analyzes a consumer’s face constitutes the collection or use of regulated biometric information.
The case: Plaintiff Fiza Javid alleges that MAC’s virtual makeup try-on technology captured and used facial geometry without the disclosures and consent required by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. MAC removed the case to federal court, where the court denied its motion to dismiss in June 2026, finding that Javid plausibly alleged that the collected biometric data was capable of identifying her.
Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc.
June 11, 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · Copyright · Generative imagery · AI outputs
The issue: Whether generative-AI companies can face copyright liability for systems that allegedly reproduce recognizable copyrighted characters in response to user prompts.
The case: Disney and Universal entities sued Midjourney in June 2025, alleging that its image-generation service was trained on copyrighted works and enables users to generate unauthorized depictions of characters including Darth Vader, Elsa, and the Minions. Warner Bros., DC Comics, Hanna-Barbera, Turner Entertainment, and Cartoon Network filed a separate action against Midjourney in September 2025 over characters including Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. In November 2025, the court consolidated the two actions for all purposes, including trial, with the Disney action serving as the lead case.
In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation
Centralized April 3, 2025 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Copyright · AI training · AI outputs
The issue: When the use of copyrighted works in generative-AI systems, and the outputs those systems produce, can give rise to direct copyright liability.
The case: A number of author-led copyright cases against OpenAI were centralized in multidistrict litigation in April 2025. In October 2025, the court found that the consolidated plaintiffs had adequately pleaded direct copyright infringement based on at least some ChatGPT outputs, including sufficient allegations of copying and substantial similarity. The ruling addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings rather than ultimately determining infringement or fair use.
2024
Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
August 19, 2024 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Copyright · AI training · Fair use
The issue: Whether using copyrighted works to train generative-AI models constitutes fair use, and whether the answer differs when copyrighted works are acquired through piracy and retained in a central library.
The case: Authors sued Anthropic over its acquisition and use of copyrighted books in developing Claude. In June 2025, the court held that Anthropic’s use of books to train its large language models was fair use and separately held that converting lawfully purchased print books into digital copies for its central library was fair use. However, the court treated Anthropic’s acquisition and retention of millions of pirated books separately and rejected fair use for that conduct on the summary-judgment record. The parties subsequently reached a $1.5 billion class settlement covering the pirated-book claims, which the court granted final approval in July 2026.
Lehrman v. LOVO, Inc.
May 16, 2024 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Voice cloning · Right of publicity · AI-generated content
The issue: Whether cloning and commercially using an individual’s voice without authorization violates state publicity rights or other protections.
The case: Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage allege that LOVO used their voices and identities without authorization to create and market AI-generated voice products. In July 2025, the court allowed their claims under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law to proceed while dismissing a number of other claims and permitting amendment of their copyright theory.
Main Sequence, Ltd. v. Dudesy LLC, et al.
January 25, 2024 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · AI-generated content · Right of publicity · Copyright
The issue: How copyright and publicity rights apply to AI-generated content that imitates the voice, likeness, and persona of a real person.
The case: George Carlin’s estate sued over an AI-generated comedy special that allegedly imitated Carlin’s voice and persona. The parties reached an agreement in April 2024, and the court entered a stipulated consent judgment and permanent injunction in June 2024 barring the defendants from distributing the challenged special and from using Carlin’s image, voice, or likeness without the plaintiffs’ express written approval.
2023
Young v. NeoCortext, Inc.
April 3, 2023 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · Deepfakes · Right of publicity · First Amendment
The issue: Whether the commercial use of an individual’s likeness in connection with AI-enabled face-swapping technology violates publicity rights, and how those claims interact with copyright and First Amendment protections.
The case: Television personality Kyland Young alleges that Reface developer NeoCortext used his likeness without authorization to promote and sell subscriptions to its face-swapping app. In December 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of NeoCortext’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding that Young had plausibly alleged a statutory right-of-publicity claim, that the claim was not preempted by copyright law, and that NeoCortext had not established its transformative-use defense as a matter of law.
Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc.
February 3, 2023 · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2025 · Copyright · Trademark · AI training · Generative imagery
The issue: Whether using copyrighted images to train a generative-AI system constitutes infringement and whether outputs that reproduce or imitate source-identifying elements, including watermarks, can give rise to trademark liability.
The case: Getty alleges that Stability AI copied millions of images, along with associated captions and metadata, to develop Stable Diffusion. Getty voluntarily dismissed the Delaware action without prejudice in August 2025 after Stability AI challenged personal jurisdiction and refiled its claims in the Northern District of California. In April 2026, the California court allowed Getty’s trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and California unfair competition claims to proceed, while dismissing its false copyright-management-information claim without prejudice for failure adequately to plead the required scienter.
Andersen, et al. v. Stability AI Ltd., et al.
January 13, 2023 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Copyright · AI training · Generative imagery
The issue: Whether the use of copyrighted visual works to train generative-image models, and the operation and distribution of those models, can give rise to copyright infringement and related liability.
The case: Visual artists sued Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway over the alleged use of copyrighted artworks to train image-generation systems. In August 2024, the court allowed key copyright claims to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged claims based on the use of their works in connection with the defendants’ models. The court also allowed false-endorsement and trade-dress claims against Midjourney to proceed, while dismissing other claims. The litigation remains pending.
Updated
September 21, 2026
This article was initially published on June 5, 2023, and has been updated to reflect newly-filed lawsuits and updates in previously-reported cases. The Sept. 21, 2026 update reflects Amazon’s amended complaint in its case against Perplexity.
Share
