OpenAI has suffered a significant legal setback in an ongoing copyright battle with a group of prominent authors who allege that the company’s artificial intelligence models unlawfully copied and reproduced their work. A federal judge in New York has ruled that the lawsuit, which claims that OpenAI’s ChatGPT generated text strikingly similar to copyrighted novels, can move forward on critical grounds.

The ruling marks one of the most consequential developments yet in the expanding legal conflict between creative professionals and artificial intelligence developers over how AI models are trained and how they use copyrighted material.

Judge Allows Copyright Infringement Claim to Proceed

U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York declined OpenAI’s motion to dismiss part of a consolidated class-action lawsuit brought by a group of well-known authors, including Game of Thrones creator George R.R. Martin and The Firm author John Grisham.

The authors accuse OpenAI of “massive and systematic infringement” of their intellectual property by using their books without permission to train the company’s large language models, including ChatGPT. The plaintiffs also allege that the outputs of those models — text generated by AI that closely mirrors their creative works — constitute direct copyright violations.

Judge Stein’s ruling, issued October 28, 2025, did not decide whether the underlying use of copyrighted material for AI training qualifies as fair use under U.S. law. However, he did allow the authors to proceed with claims that AI-generated summaries and passages produced by ChatGPT could be “substantially similar” to their original works.

Specifically, the judge cited examples in which ChatGPT summarized Martin’s A Game of Thrones in ways that “convey the overall tone, feel, and sequence” of the original, including detailed elements of plot, character development, and narrative structure. Such similarities, Stein wrote, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and could lead a jury to find copyright infringement if proven.

OpenAI’s Fair Use Defense Faces Heightened Scrutiny

OpenAI and other technology companies have consistently argued that their use of publicly available data — including copyrighted books, news articles, and online text — to train large language models is protected under the doctrine of “fair use.” This legal principle allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as commentary, research, or innovation.

In its motion, OpenAI maintained that training models on large datasets drawn from the internet is transformative, serving a fundamentally different purpose than the original creative works. The company also claimed that any outputs produced by ChatGPT are new, independent expressions rather than derivative copies of copyrighted material.

Judge Stein’s order did not directly address the merits of OpenAI’s fair use argument but indicated that the similarity between AI-generated text and original works warrants further examination. This could mean that, at least in some cases, fair use defenses may not automatically shield AI companies from infringement claims when their models generate output that replicates protected expression.

Broader Implications for the AI Industry

The case, formally known as In re OpenAI Copyright Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-md-03143), is one of several high-profile lawsuits filed against OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and other major AI developers. It reflects growing concern among authors, artists, and publishers about how generative AI systems are trained and how those systems reproduce or remix existing content.

If the court ultimately finds that OpenAI’s model outputs infringe on copyrighted works, the ruling could reshape the boundaries of permissible data use in artificial intelligence training. It may also encourage other creative professionals to file similar claims or push for legislative reform to protect intellectual property in the age of generative AI.

The decision arrives just months after another AI company, Anthropic, agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging similar copyright violations. Legal experts say that together, these cases are laying the groundwork for how courts will define the limits of “fair use” and “transformative purpose” in machine learning contexts.

The Road Ahead: Discovery and Potential Industry Impact

With the dismissal motion denied, the case now moves into the discovery phase. Both sides will exchange evidence on how OpenAI collected training data and how closely ChatGPT’s generated content aligns with specific copyrighted works. This phase could reveal key technical details about the datasets, model architecture, and safeguards used to prevent replication of protected material.

The outcome of discovery — and any eventual ruling on fair use — could have profound implications across industries that rely on generative AI. Companies developing large language models, image generators, and music tools are already re-evaluating their data sourcing and licensing practices in anticipation of potential legal restrictions.

For authors and publishers, Judge Stein’s ruling is seen as a validation of long-held concerns that AI models trained on unlicensed content might effectively cannibalize the creative work of human writers. The Authors Guild, which helped coordinate the lawsuits, said the decision underscores the importance of protecting the creative economy from unauthorized technological use.

A Defining Legal Moment for AI and Copyright

While the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, this decision represents one of the first times a federal court has acknowledged that AI-generated output could directly infringe on copyrighted works. It signals to both developers and rights-holders that courts are willing to scrutinize not only how AI models are trained but also what they produce.

As the case proceeds, the ruling may influence broader regulatory and policy discussions on the balance between innovation and intellectual property rights in the age of generative AI. For now, the message from the court is clear: creative work still deserves protection, even in a machine-driven world.

As AI rapidly transforms the legal and creative industries, understanding how copyright law adapts to emerging technologies is more crucial than ever.

If you’re a legal professional, law student, or attorney looking to deepen your expertise in AI, intellectual property, or tech law — or seeking a new role at the forefront of these evolving fields — visit LawCrossing.com.

The post OpenAI setback: U.S. judge rejects part of authors’ bid to dismiss copyright lawsuit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction: The Growing Legal Controversy Over ABA Diversity Initiatives

A coalition of conservative legal organizations has formally challenged the American Bar Association’s (ABA) diversity initiatives, alleging that these programs unlawfully prioritize minority and underrepresented applicants. This complaint, filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), marks a significant legal test of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in the legal profession, particularly in light of President Donald Trump’s return to office and his administration’s renewed push against DEI initiatives.

Background: The ABA’s Role in Legal Education and DEI Efforts

The ABA, an influential accreditor of U.S. law schools with approximately 150,000 members, has long advocated for diversity and inclusion within the legal profession. As part of its broader mission, the organization has established numerous initiatives aimed at increasing opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in law, such as the Diversity Clerkship Program and the Judicial Intern Opportunity Program (JIOP).

However, these programs are now under scrutiny from groups including the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and the Center for Equal Opportunity, which argue that they continue to engage in race-conscious selection practices despite previous modifications to their criteria.

Key Arguments in the Legal Challenge

The coalition opposing the ABA’s DEI programs contends that:

• The ABA’s initiatives operate in a manner that unlawfully prioritizes minority applicants, effectively discriminating against non-minority candidates.
• Even after adjustments to selection criteria, the programs retain elements of race-conscious selection, making them inconsistent with recent Supreme Court rulings limiting affirmative action.
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) should investigate whether these programs violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

Legal Precedents and the Current Legal Landscape

The legal challenge against the ABA occurs against the backdrop of a broader shift in U.S. legal precedent regarding affirmative action and DEI initiatives. The 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled against the use of race in college admissions, setting the stage for increased scrutiny on race-based selection criteria in other sectors, including legal education.

Furthermore, President Trump’s administration has signaled a renewed focus on reducing federally funded DEI initiatives, further fueling legal disputes over such programs.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

How the ABA’s Diversity Programs Function

The Diversity Clerkship Program and JIOP have been pillars of the ABA’s commitment to diversity. These programs aim to provide law students from diverse backgrounds with invaluable experience in judicial and legal clerkships.

Key Features of the Programs:

1. Diversity Clerkship Program: Offers placements with judges and attorneys to help students gain practical legal experience.
2. Judicial Intern Opportunity Program (JIOP): A summer internship program designed to provide hands-on experience to underrepresented students.
3. DEI-Focused Scholarships: Some programs within the ABA include financial aid and mentorship specifically for minority students.

Potential Impact of the EEOC Investigation

If the EEOC decides to formally investigate and potentially take action against the ABA, the following consequences could emerge:

• Legal Uncertainty for Other DEI Initiatives: If the ABA is found in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws, it could set a precedent affecting similar diversity initiatives in law firms, legal organizations, and law schools.
• Changes in Program Structures: The ABA might be forced to revise or eliminate some aspects of its diversity programs, leading to less targeted support for underrepresented groups in law.
• Broader Political Implications: This case could embolden other challenges to diversity-focused programs in higher education, corporate America, and nonprofit sectors.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Perspectives on the Issue: Supporters vs. Opponents

Supporters of the ABA’s DEI Efforts Argue That:

• Diversity enhances the legal profession by ensuring a broader range of perspectives in the judiciary and legal practice.
• Historical underrepresentation of minorities in the legal field justifies targeted efforts to provide equitable opportunities.
• Limiting or dismantling these programs would exacerbate existing disparities within legal education and practice.

Opponents Claim That:

• Race-conscious programs may be unconstitutional, violating principles of equal treatment under the law.
• Diversity initiatives should focus on socioeconomic factors rather than race to avoid legal challenges.
• The ABA should shift towards race-neutral mentoring and internship programs open to all applicants.

What’s Next? The Future of Diversity in Legal Education

The legal battle over the ABA’s programs represents a pivotal moment for DEI in law. Several key questions remain:

• Will the EEOC take action? If so, what implications will this have for other legal diversity programs?
• How will law firms and law schools respond? Some institutions may reconsider their DEI initiatives to avoid similar legal challenges.
• What legal strategies can the ABA pursue? The organization may need to refine its programs to align with evolving legal standards while maintaining its commitment to diversity.

FAQ Section

1. What is the primary legal argument against the ABA’s diversity programs?

Critics argue that these programs engage in race-conscious selection that may violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

2. How has the ABA responded to the complaint?

As of now, the ABA has not issued an official response to the complaint filed with the EEOC.

3. Could this case impact DEI programs in other industries?

Yes, if the EEOC finds that the ABA’s programs are unlawful, it could set a precedent affecting corporate and educational DEI initiatives.

4. Are there alternatives to race-conscious diversity initiatives?

Some suggest that socioeconomic-based programs and mentorship initiatives open to all students could achieve similar goals without legal challenges.

5. What are the possible outcomes of this legal challenge?

The ABA could be required to revise or eliminate certain programs, or it could win the case and continue operating as is. Broader implications could influence how DEI initiatives function in the legal industry and beyond.

Final Thoughts: Navigating the Changing Landscape of Diversity in Law

This challenge against the ABA’s diversity programs is a defining moment for DEI initiatives in the legal sector. As the legal battle unfolds, institutions must balance compliance with legal standards while maintaining their commitment to a diverse and inclusive legal profession.

The outcome of this case will not only determine the future of ABA programs but will also shape the broader trajectory of diversity efforts in the legal industry for years to come.

The post Legal Battle Over ABA Diversity Programs: Challenges, Implications, and the Future of DEI in Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Legal Fight to Keep the Doors Open

Faculty, students, and alumni of Golden Gate University Law School are fighting to prevent the closure of the 123-year-old institution. A pivotal hearing is scheduled for next week in a California state court where plaintiffs will seek an injunction against the abrupt decision to shut down the program.

Hearing Set for Injunction Request

The hearing to discuss the motion for an injunction is set for Tuesday, July 30, in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Presiding over the case will be Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr. Ryan Griffith, the lead attorney from Bay Area Receivership Group and an adjunct professor at Golden Gate University, has been actively involved in the legal proceedings. Griffith filed a complaint earlier this year on behalf of four students and the alumni association, citing breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unlawful business practices, and fraud.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Controversial Teach-Out Plan

In March, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved a revised Teach-Out Plan, which allows the school’s accreditation to continue until July 2027 but halts the admission of new students after this summer. Current students are to be transferred to the University of San Francisco and Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Minnesota. However, Griffith argues that the details of this plan have not been transparently shared with the affected parties.

Accusations Against University Leadership

The complaint accuses the university president, David J. Fike, of engaging in schemes that financially burdened the law program, leading to its proposed closure. Allegations include incurring millions of dollars in debt and hastily implementing online legal programs. Griffith highlights Fike’s history of financial crises at other institutions, pointing out similar outcomes during his tenure at Marygrove College and Holy Names University.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Implications for Students and Faculty

The abrupt closure announcement has particularly impacted students who were offered free tuition in 2022, as they have yet to complete their bar exams. Griffith stresses that these students would not have enrolled had they known about the impending closure and relocation to Minnesota. He contends that Golden Gate University has failed to provide evidence against the injunction, which aims to allow current students to graduate without disruption.

Lack of Clarity and Communication

There has been no clear communication from the successor institutions, the University of San Francisco and Mitchell Hamline, about their roles in the Teach-Out Plan. This lack of verification has left students uncertain about their educational futures. Griffith’s reply brief emphasizes that the absence of documentation from these schools is significant, as they are not obligated to honor the commitments made by Golden Gate University.

A Broader Issue in Legal Education

Griffith points out that Golden Gate University is not alone in facing such challenges, noting the example of Argosy University’s Western State College of Law, which managed to navigate financial troubles through a receivership. He advocates for a similar approach to be considered for Golden Gate University.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

The upcoming hearing will determine if the injunction to keep the law school open for another year will be granted. Following this, efforts to enter into receivership may begin. Griffith, despite being an adjunct professor, expresses his personal stake in the matter, highlighting his disappointment at seeing his alma mater potentially close.

University’s Response

A spokesperson for Golden Gate University clarified that the institution is not closing but has reached agreements with other law schools for the teach-out process. Despite this, the plaintiffs remain unconvinced and continue to seek clarity and a more secure plan for current students.

Legal Counsel and Next Steps

Legal representatives for Golden Gate University, including Rene I. Gamboa, Robert J. Flemming III, and Mark S. Posard, have not commented on the case. The court’s decision on the injunction will be a critical step in determining the future of Golden Gate University Law School.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Legal Battle Over Golden Gate University Law School's Closure first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

TikTok has taken legal action against the US government in response to a newly enacted law that mandates its Chinese parent company, ByteDance Ltd., to divest the popular video-sharing app or face a nationwide ban.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Lawsuit Challenges Congressional Mandate

The lawsuit represents the first legal challenge following the passage of the law in April, aimed at addressing national security concerns regarding potential Chinese government access to user data and content control. TikTok argues that the law infringes on free speech rights and adversely affects content creators and small businesses benefiting from the platform.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Constitutional Questions Raised

TikTok’s legal filing alleges that the law imposes an unprecedented nationwide ban on a single speech platform, violating constitutional principles. The company seeks judicial intervention to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement by the Department of Justice.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Uncertainty Looms Over App’s Fate

As the deadline for divestiture approaches, ByteDance’s lack of intent to seek a buyer for TikTok suggests a protracted legal battle. While the app continues to operate, the impending ban deadline prompts speculation about emergency injunctions. The lawsuit may compel government officials to disclose sensitive information to justify the law’s necessity.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Potential Ramifications and Legal Proceedings

With TikTok portraying itself as the underdog, legal experts anticipate a rigorous legal contest, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. TikTok’s economic impact and free speech arguments could sway judicial decisions. Meanwhile, legislative efforts and mounting lawsuits against social media platforms contribute to the complex legal landscape surrounding TikTok’s future.

Want to stay ahead of the competition? Here’s what you need to do.

Deadline Extension and Presidential Authority

The initial divestiture deadline coincides with the presidential inauguration, allowing President Biden the option to extend it by an additional 90 days. TikTok’s legal battle underscores broader debates surrounding national security, free speech, and government regulation in the digital age.

By initiating legal proceedings, TikTok challenges the government’s authority while navigating intricate legal terrain that could redefine the boundaries of digital governance and free expression in the United States.

The post TikTok Sues US Government Over Divest-or-Ban Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Context and Legal Battle

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to tackle the contentious issue of abortion once again, this time focusing on emergency room procedures in cases where a pregnant woman’s health is at severe risk. This impending legal showdown comes just two years after the landmark Roe v. Wade reversal, which empowered states to enact their own abortion bans for the first time in decades. At the heart of the matter is whether emergency room doctors nationwide can legally perform abortions in situations of imminent health peril for pregnant women.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

The Idaho Case: Impact and Legal Arguments

The Supreme Court’s decision will be heavily influenced by a case originating in Idaho, where a law banning abortion except in cases where the patient’s life is directly threatened has been in effect since January. The Biden administration has challenged this law, invoking the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to safeguard access to abortion in states with stringent bans. However, the Supreme Court’s prior order allowing Idaho’s law to proceed while the case is under review suggests skepticism regarding the administration’s stance.

Want to stay ahead of the competition? Here’s what you need to do.

Ripple Effects and Stakes

The outcome of this legal battle extends far beyond Idaho’s borders, with implications for other states grappling with similarly stringent abortion bans, notably Texas, which is embroiled in a parallel legal dispute. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s ruling may shed light on broader constitutional questions, including the concept of “fetal personhood” advocated by conservative factions.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Impact on Healthcare and Patient Safety

Opponents of Idaho’s abortion ban warn of dire consequences, highlighting instances where pregnant women faced dangerous delays in receiving essential medical care due to the law’s restrictions. Physicians and healthcare providers express concern over the escalating health risks for pregnant women forced to navigate the legal labyrinth surrounding abortion access in emergency situations.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Arguments and Counterarguments

The crux of the legal debate revolves around the interpretation of EMTALA and its applicability in the context of state-level abortion regulations. While proponents of the law argue for its role in safeguarding patient care and health outcomes, opponents contend that it encroaches upon states’ rights to determine healthcare policies, particularly regarding abortion.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Societal Impact and Physician Exodus

Critics decry the Idaho law’s stringent penalties, including potential imprisonment for doctors, which they argue has precipitated an exodus of healthcare professionals from the state. The looming threat of criminal prosecution looms large over physicians, contributing to workforce shortages and compromising patient access to vital medical services.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Conclusion and Legal Proceedings

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the Idaho case, the nation awaits a pivotal ruling that could reshape the landscape of abortion rights and healthcare protocols. The decision, expected by late June, holds profound implications for reproductive rights, patient safety, and the broader political discourse leading up to the November elections.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Legal Case References

The cases under scrutiny are Moyle v. United States, 23-726, and Idaho v. United States, 23-727, representing a critical juncture in the ongoing battle over abortion rights in the United States.

The post Supreme Court to Decide on Emergency Abortion Protocol: The Idaho Case first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Amidst a long-standing fee dispute, renowned law firm Jones Day and patent licensing company Soverain Software find themselves embroiled in a complex legal battle that spans over two decades.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

The Fee Dispute Unravels

Following a $40 million settlement with Amazon in 2005, Jones Day claims Soverain Software failed to pay fees for legal work conducted post-settlement. Despite securing licensing agreements totaling nearly $12 million for Soverain, the relationship soured during a lawsuit against electronics retailer Newegg, where a jury awarded Soverain $2.5 million, significantly less than the $34 million sought.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Fallout and Allegations

Jones Day alleges that Soverain’s founder, Christian Oberbeck, siphoned $50 million from the company, partly through a new entity lending money to Soverain. Moreover, the firm accuses former Soverain executive Katharine Wolanyck of orchestrating a fraudulent transfer of funds to herself, amounting to over $275,000.

Want to stay ahead of the competition? Here’s what you need to do.

Legal Maneuvers and Responses

Jones Day seeks to enforce a $1.5 million arbitration award against Soverain, despite objections from the latter. Soverain argues that the suit was filed too late and contests the validity of payments made to Wolanyck, citing the vacating and subsequent reinstatement of the arbitration award.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Continuing Saga

As the legal saga unfolds, both parties remain entrenched in their positions. With allegations of fraud, unpaid fees, and contested arbitration awards, the Jones Day vs. Soverain Software dispute continues to captivate legal observers.

Case Details: Jones Day v. Soverain Software LLC, No. 2021-ch-03917, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division.

The post Jones Day vs. Soverain Software: The Ongoing Legal Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, Samsung Electronics has been instructed by a Texas federal jury to pay $142 million to patent owner G+ Communications for infringing on G+ patents concerning 5G wireless technology used in its Galaxy smartphones.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Verdict Details

The jury’s decision indicates that Samsung is liable for two separate lump-sum payments: $61 million for violating one G+ patent and $81 million for another.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Background and Legal Proceedings

Plano-based G+ Communications possesses patents essential for devices to adhere to 5G wireless standards, as recognized by international standards organizations. Alleging that Samsung incorporated its technology into 5G-capable Galaxy smartphones without obtaining a license, G+ initiated legal action against Samsung in 2022.

Samsung refuted these claims, contending that the patents were invalid and asserting that G+ failed to offer licenses on fair and reasonable terms, as required by standards organizations.

Want to stay ahead of the competition? Here’s what you need to do.

Retrial and Outcome

Following a three-day retrial on damages, Chief U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap annulled an earlier $67.5 million verdict for G+ in the same case. The retrial aimed to reassess the appropriate damages, prompted by concerns that the initial jury might have been confused about whether the award should be a lump sum or a running royalty.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Reactions

G+ attorney Jennifer Truelove expressed satisfaction with the verdict, while representatives for Samsung have yet to respond to requests for comment on the outcome.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Case Details

The case, titled G+ Communications LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with the case number 2:22-cv-00078.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Legal Representation

• For G+: Jason Sheasby, Lisa Glasser, and Michael Harbour of Irell & Manella; Jennifer Truelove and Samuel Baxter of McKool Smith
• For Samsung: Ruffin Cordell, John Thornburgh, Michael McKeon, Ralph Phillips, Linhong Zhang, April Sunyoung Park, Leonard Davis, Thomas Reger, and Aleksandr Gelberg of Fish & Richardson

The post Texas Jury Rules Samsung Owes $142 Million in Wireless Patent Case first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Court Rejects SpaceX’s Bid

In a divided decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined SpaceX’s latest attempt to keep its lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) structure in Texas. The court voted 8-8, refusing to reconsider a previous ruling that denied SpaceX’s request to block the case’s transfer from Brownsville, Texas, to Los Angeles.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Background of the Lawsuit

SpaceX filed a lawsuit in January, alleging that the NLRB’s enforcement proceedings violated its constitutional right to a jury trial. The company specifically cited limitations on the removal of board members and administrative judges. The lawsuit was filed in response to the NLRB’s complaint alleging that SpaceX unlawfully terminated eight employees for criticizing Elon Musk, the company’s CEO.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Transfer of the Case

The NLRB urged U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera to transfer the case to Los Angeles, arguing that the events central to the lawsuit primarily occurred in California. Despite SpaceX’s objection, the case was transferred to Los Angeles in February. The 5th Circuit initially stayed the transfer order but later upheld the decision to move the case.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Judicial Response and Dissent

The tie in the full court vote was due to the recusal of U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho. Judge Edith Jones, along with other Republican appointees, dissented, arguing that SpaceX had the right to sue in its chosen venue. Jones criticized the NLRB’s tactics in advocating for the transfer, accusing them of “forum shopping.”

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Conclusion and Ongoing Proceedings

Despite the court’s decision, SpaceX continues to pursue its legal challenge against the NLRB in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the NLRB attorneys involved in the case were cleared of wrongdoing in a separate order, although the court noted some errors in their actions. The case remains a focal point in the ongoing dispute over jurisdiction and venue selection.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Case Details:

Case Name: In re: Space Exploration Technologies
Court: 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Number: 24-40103
Representation:

• SpaceX: Harry Johnson, Michael Kenneally, Catherine Eschbach, and Amanda Salz of Morgan Lewis & Bockius
• NLRB: David Boehm

The post SpaceX Lawsuit Against NLRB Venue Decision first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Epic Games, the creator of the popular video game “Fortnite,” is pushing for reforms in Google’s Play Store following an antitrust victory against the tech giant.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Proposal for Greater Competition

In a court filing, Epic urged U.S. District Judge James Donato to enforce changes that would increase competition in the Play Store. This includes allowing users more flexibility in downloading apps and restricting Google’s ability to make exclusive deals with device manufacturers to limit the preloading of competing app stores.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Call for More Freedom

Epic emphasized the need for consumers and developers to have more control over app distribution and in-app purchases. They advocate for bringing the Epic Games Store to Android without obstacles and for eliminating anticompetitive fees and restrictions.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Google’s Response

In response, Google argued that Epic seeks to benefit from the Play Store without meeting its requirements. They defended Android as an open platform facing significant competition from rivals like Apple.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Judicial Consideration

Judge Donato, who oversaw the antitrust trial against Google, is not obligated to accept Epic’s proposal. However, this filing sets the stage for further legal battles over Google’s app store policies and control mechanisms.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Background on the Antitrust Trial

The jury verdict in December found Google guilty of hindering developers’ ability to distribute apps freely and imposing excessive fees on in-app transactions. Google has faced criticism for its 30% commission on many apps and purchases.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Epic’s Stance

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has expressed dissatisfaction with the previous settlement, believing it did not adequately address competition concerns in the Play Store.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Legal Landscape

While Google has agreed to a $700 million settlement over Play Store restrictions, it plans to appeal the antitrust verdict. Any reforms mandated by the court could prolong the legal battle, similar to Epic’s ongoing case against Apple regarding its App Store practices.

The post Epic Games Advocates App Store Reforms in Response to Antitrust Win Against Google first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Suzie Cheikho’s Employment Woes

Suzie Cheikho’s employment saga garnered widespread attention last year when her former employer, Insurance Australia Group (IAG), utilized keystroke technology to monitor her productivity while working remotely. Following 18 years of service, Cheikho was terminated from her position in February 2023.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Battle and Outcome

In her pursuit of justice, Cheikho filed a claim of unfair dismissal against IAG. However, her efforts were thwarted when the Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruled in favor of the company, citing misconduct as a valid reason for her termination. The FWC highlighted instances of missed deadlines, meeting absences, communication challenges, and financial implications stemming from incomplete tasks. Notably, Cheikho had received a warning just months before her dismissal.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Monitoring Remote Productivity

IAG’s utilization of keystroke technology shed light on Cheikho’s work habits during her remote tenure. Over 49 days spanning from October to December 2022, the software meticulously tracked her activities. The findings revealed concerning trends: frequent late starts, early finishes, days devoid of any work, and subpar keyboard activity during supposed working hours.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Professional Fallout and Personal Impact

The revelation of Cheikho’s remote work habits catalyzed a viral sensation, leaving her prospects for future employment in jeopardy. Expressing embarrassment and frustration, Cheikho lamented the enduring stigma attached to her online notoriety. Despite contesting the accuracy of the keystroke data, she faced relentless scrutiny and harassment across various social media platforms, exacerbating her plight.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Conclusion

Suzie Cheikho’s ordeal underscores the evolving dynamics of remote work supervision and the profound ramifications of digital monitoring in the professional sphere. As she navigates the aftermath of her publicized dismissal, Cheikho grapples with the daunting challenge of rebuilding her career amidst persistent scrutiny and social media backlash.

The post Woman Fired Over Work from Home Productivity Concerns Faces Bleak Job Prospects first appeared on JDJournal Blog.