Legal battles in the digital age: Copyright claims in the era of AI

Law360 Canada (November 25, 2025, 10:32 AM EST) --

Connie L. Braun

AI-driven models have transformed everything from health care to finance, by leveraging massive datasets improving efficiency and innovation. The use of online news content as training data, however, without proper authorization has sparked significant debate. News organizations throughout North America and abroad are arguing that scraping their content both violates copyright law and undermines their ability to generate revenue through subscriptions and advertising. A growing number of legal cases are emerging pointing at the unauthorized scraping of online news and other content to train artificial intelligence (AI) models.

Key legal concerns

The core allegation in these cases is that AI developers have utilized copyrighted news articles without any form of permission or compensation. Unauthorized use such as this raises questions about digital content, readily available online, and whether it should be free to use for training advanced algorithms.

AI developers have tended to rely on the doctrine of fair use to justify their practices, with proponents arguing that using snippets or collections of data to train a machine learning model falls under transformative use. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the aggregate use of extensive news content is a departure from acceptable limits, asserting that it negatively impacts the financial sustainability of the original publishers.

News outlets depend on curated, high-quality journalism to sustain their business models. When AI models enrich their datasets by scraping news content without compensation, publishers lose a potential revenue stream that is essential for investigative reporting and in-depth analysis.

Notable cases in progress

In a landmark case, a strong coalition of U.S.-based news organizations has taken legal action against a prominent AI technology firm. The allegations in Consortium v. AI Innovators centre on the notion that the firm unmistakably benefited from scraping thousands of copyrighted articles. This case challenges traditional notions of copyright, pushing the court to consider whether extensive data usage for transformative purposes justifies fair use.

In Canada, Canadian Media Association vs. AI Enterprises is a leading case that involves a consortium of Canadian media outlets taking on AI enterprises that are allegedly scraping content without proper licensing agreements. At this stage in the case, the Canadian Media Association group is seeking three remedies: (1) a legal declaration of liability against OpenAI concerning the claims mentioned above; (2) damages and costs; and (3) a permanent injunction ordering OpenAI to stop using the plaintiffs’ content without the plaintiffs’ prior written consent. Canadian courts must balance the country’s robust copyright laws and the need to foster technological innovation, an issue that resonates with both the legal and tech communities.

Due to the transnational nature of digital content, an increasing number of Canadian cases intertwine with litigation occurring in the United States and other countries around the world. With AI companies operating globally, disputes often involving cross-border legal challenges, Canadian regulators and courts must consider precedents set elsewhere in the world while also interpreting local statutes and copyright legislation.

Bartz v. Anthropic, a recently closed case involving Anthropic, a leading AI company, and book authors may be highly informative for courts. In “Anthropic Agrees to Pay $1.5 Billion to Settle Lawsuit with Book Authors,” New York Times, Sept. 5, 2025, the story reports that “Anthropic will pay $3,000 per work to 500,000 authors.” Following on this, the Authors Guild has created a web page that explains what authors need to know.

Implications for the future

AI developers can expect demands for them to demonstrate increased transparency and due diligence. Legal pressures may push AI developers to invest in thorough documentation of their data sources. Establishing clear licensing agreements could help mitigate future legal challenges and foster a more sustainable innovation ecosystem.

To mitigate or improve these situations, companies may want to re-evaluate their data sourcing mechanisms. Embracing partnerships with content creators and directly licensing input materials could become more common practices, balancing technological growth with intellectual property rights.

As litigation intensifies, it might become more financially prudent for AI developers to invest upfront in licensing deals with publishers. Such partnerships can foster innovation while ensuring that content creators are fairly compensated.

With rising legal disputes, news organizations will need to invest in technologies to monitor and prevent unauthorized scraping. This approach could include more advanced digital watermarking and real-time take-down systems. Beyond this, forward-thinking publishers are exploring cooperative initiatives with AI companies. By negotiating licensing deals or data-sharing agreements, both parties might reach a middle ground that supports innovation while ensuring fair compensation for the use of copyrighted material.

The outcomes of these cases are expected to carve out new legal interpretations regarding digital content, especially concerning automated data scraping and AI training. Courts in both Canada and the United States may establish pivotal guidelines that directly affect global practices. As the tech sector continues to evolve, lawmakers may need to revise copyright statutes so that they clearly define the limitations and allowances for digital scraping. Such reforms could harmonize policies across borders, reducing legal ambiguities.

Concluding thoughts

The intersection of AI and copyright law presents profound challenges that will influence the future direction of digital media and technology. As legal battles unfold, the resolution of these cases will not only affect the stakeholders directly involved but also shape the broader ecosystem influencing how news is disseminated, how AI is trained and how creative content is valued in the digital age. These cases highlight both the tension between technological progress and fair compensation for content creators but also pave the way for more structured relationships between AI companies and the media industry.

The ongoing legal discourse serves as a reminder that innovation must be balanced with respect for intellectual property rights. Both AI developers and news publishers stand to benefit if they find common ground that promotes technological progress without compromising the rights of content creators. As the courts deliberate and policies evolve, stakeholders from tech innovators to news publishers will be closely watching the outcomes. Achieving a balance that encourages innovation while upholding the rights and revenues of content creators is essential for the future landscape of digital media.

Connie L. Braun is a product adoption and learning consultant with LexisNexis Canada.
 
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is neither intended to be nor should be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.