This week’s court ruling related the case on Google & use of public data.
Two days ago the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has issued significant ruling in case involving 谷歌 ( 23-cv-03440-AMO). Couple weeks ago there was ruling involving OpenAI (Case No. 23-cv-04557-VC) and that ruling influenced June 6th ruling against Google. These rulings underscore the importance of clear, concise legal complaints and provide valuable lessons for entities navigating similar legal landscapes.
Case Overview: Google's Motion to Dismiss ( Case No. 23-cv-03440-AMO)
In a recent ruling, the court granted Google's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in a case concerning data privacy and AI practices. Additionally, Google filed an administrative motion to relate a newly filed case, Zhang v. Google LLC, to the ongoing litigation. The court's decision was influenced by the considerations expressed by Judge Vince Chhabria in a related case involving OpenAI.
The court noted significant overlaps in plaintiffs, counsel, and the nature of the claims between the Google case and the Cousart v. OpenAI LP case. Consequently, the plaintiffs were directed to file a second amended complaint within 21 days, aiming for a more streamlined and focused presentation of their claims. The administrative motion to relate was denied without prejudice, allowing for reconsideration once the plaintiffs submit their revised complaint.
Judge Chhabria’s Order in Cousart v. OpenAI LP (Case No. 23-cv-04557-VC)
Judge Chhabria's order in the Cousart v. OpenAI LP case provides critical context for understanding the court's expectations. The defendants' motions to dismiss were granted due to the excessive length and lack of focus in the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Spanning almost 200 pages, the complaint was criticized for containing irrelevant, distracting, and redundant information, making it difficult to assess the adequacy of the legal claims.
Key points from Judge Chhabria’s order include:
1. Excessive Length and Irrelevance: The complaint included over five pages on political reactions to AI and three-plus pages on copyright concerns, despite the absence of copyright claims. Such irrelevant details hindered the clarity of the legal arguments.
2. Policy Grievances: The complaint also included rhetoric and policy grievances unsuitable for resolution in federal courts. For instance, the plaintiffs compared AI risks to nuclear weapons and requested injunctive relief that was more appropriate for policy discussions than legal adjudication.
3. Opportunity to Amend: The court granted leave to amend, emphasizing the need for a focused and relevant presentation of claims. If the amended complaint continued to be bogged down by irrelevant information, it would be dismissed with prejudice.
My takeaways for enterprise AI users.
These rulings have significant implications for enterprise users of AI who are contemplating the use of public data. Emphasizing clarity, relevance, and specificity is crucial for effectively navigating the legal landscape.
From my perspective, key takeaways for C-level executives concerned with or making decisions about data usage include:
1. Legal Basis: Carefully consider the legal grounds for using publicly available data. Ensure that your data practices are compliant with current laws and regulations.
2. Policy Advocacy: Push for clear legislation and policies to be established by the government, rather than relying on court rulings to set precedents.
3. Clear Articulation of Impact: Clearly define and articulate the potential impacts of data usage, including any potential damages or lack thereof.
For companies like Google and OpenAI, these developments underscore the importance of having rigorous legal strategies and understanding the benefits of seeking dismissal for complaints that do not meet the required standards for clarity and relevance.
But do all AI users have the capacity to fight such legal battles, or should they exercise caution in using data, or perhaps not worry about it at all? The jury is still out. At Findability Sciences , we help our customers establish a clear governance model to navigate potential pitfalls effectively.
_______
References:
Chief Operating Officer
9 个月Erudite and insightful
President, Chief Legal Officer & Company Secretary at Datamatics Global Services Ltd.
9 个月In my understanding the dismissal was due to lack of focus on the primary concern, hence the learned judge asked to file a revised motion in 21 days. The key issue on the copyright breach and whether to rely upon publicly available data to train the AI by Enterprises without the consent of the owner of the data still need to be nailed by the US courts through effective means the way Europe has done. Let's await the same.