Litigation

The Department of Justice unsealed an indictment in March 2026 charging three individuals tied to Super Micro Computer—two former employees and one contractor—with conspiring to violate U.S. export controls. The defendants allegedly diverted approximately $2.5 billion worth of servers containing advanced AI technology, including Nvidia chips, to China between 2024 and 2025. The indictment names co-founder and former senior vice president Yih‑Shyan "Wally" Liaw and a general manager from Super Micro's Taiwan office, who prosecutors say coordinated shipments through a third-party intermediary to circumvent export restrictions. Super Micro itself is not charged and has stated it was not accused of wrongdoing.

xAI filed suit on April 9, 2026, in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to block enforcement of Colorado's SB24-205, a comprehensive AI anti-discrimination law scheduled to take effect June 30, 2026. The statute requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems—those used in hiring, lending, and admissions decisions—to conduct impact assessments, make disclosures, and implement risk mitigation measures to prevent algorithmic discrimination. Two weeks later, on April 24, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened with its own complaint, arguing the law violates the Equal Protection Clause by compelling demographic adjustments through disparate-impact liability while simultaneously authorizing discrimination through exemptions for diversity initiatives. The court granted DOJ's intervention and issued a stay suspending enforcement pending resolution.

Greg Brockman's personal diary emerged this week as central evidence in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, with the co-founder and president testifying about his internal deliberations over converting the organization from nonprofit to for-profit status. The diary directly addresses Musk's core claim that OpenAI deceived him by abandoning its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for humanity's benefit. Testimony also revealed inflammatory communications: text messages in which Musk threatened to make Brockman and CEO Sam Altman "the most hated men in America" if no settlement was reached, and a 2017 meeting where Musk tore a painting from the wall after cofounders rejected his demand for majority equity.

A federal magistrate judge issued a temporary restraining order on April 27, 2026, blocking Colorado from enforcing its artificial intelligence antidiscrimination law (SB 24-205). The order freezes all state investigations and enforcement actions while litigation proceeds and shields companies from penalties for violations occurring within 14 days after the court rules on a preliminary injunction motion. The law was set to take effect June 30.

A federal magistrate judge in Colorado issued a stay on April 27, 2026, freezing enforcement of the Colorado AI Act (SB24-205) just weeks before its scheduled June 30 effective date. The order prevents the Colorado Attorney General from initiating investigations or enforcement actions under the law, effectively halting one of the country's most comprehensive state AI regulations. Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser voluntarily committed not to enforce the law or begin rulemaking until after the legislative session concludes.

OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman face mounting pressure as the company prepares for a potential 2026 public offering. The intensifying scrutiny spans multiple fronts: internal competitive tensions with Anthropic, activist opposition, and legal proceedings. Most notably, Chief Revenue Officer Denise Dresser circulated a memo challenging Anthropic's financial claims, alleging inflated revenue through accounting methods and strategic errors in compute acquisition. Anthropic currently reports $30 billion in annualized revenue compared to OpenAI's last reported $25 billion. Separately, an activist group called Stop AI has conducted ongoing protests at OpenAI headquarters, with some members facing criminal trial for blocking the building. Altman was served a subpoena onstage in San Francisco in late April while speaking with basketball coach Steve Kerr, requiring him to testify as a witness in the criminal case.

A former in-house attorney at Workday has settled and dismissed the remaining claims in his 2023 employment discrimination lawsuit against the HR software company. The voluntary dismissal followed settlement discussions and was reported on April 24, 2026.

Tesla faces coordinated class-action litigation across multiple jurisdictions from owners of Hardware 3-equipped vehicles manufactured between 2016 and 2024. The plaintiffs allege that Tesla and Elon Musk made false representations that these vehicles would achieve full self-driving capability through software updates alone. A spring 2026 software release exposed Hardware 3's technical limitations, effectively excluding millions of owners from advanced autonomous features now reserved for newer Hardware 4 systems. The lead case, brought by retired attorney Tom LoSavio, centers on buyers who paid $8,000 to $12,000 for full self-driving capability that is now incompatible with their vehicles without costly hardware retrofits Tesla has not formally offered. Similar suits have been filed in Australia, the Netherlands, across Europe, and in California, where one action involves approximately 3,000 plaintiffs. Globally, the disputes affect roughly 4 million vehicles.

Jury selection began April 28 in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. Opening statements occurred April 29. Musk alleges OpenAI breached its 2015 nonprofit founding agreement by converting to a for-profit model in 2019 with Microsoft backing, abandoning its stated mission to develop AI for humanity's benefit. He invested $38–45 million in the company. Musk seeks OpenAI's return to nonprofit status, removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership, and $134–150 billion in damages to be redirected to OpenAI's charitable arm.

Elon Musk testified April 28 in a California courtroom that OpenAI breached a foundational promise by converting from nonprofit to for-profit status. Now valued at $852 billion, OpenAI made the shift despite Musk's 2017 warning that the company should either remain nonprofit or operate independently. "It is not OK to steal a charity," Musk told the court, referencing email exchanges with Sam Altman in which Altman expressed support for the nonprofit model but acknowledged no legal obligation bound the company to it permanently.

A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida dismissed a class-action lawsuit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act against Professional Parking Management Corporation, finding the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The suit alleged the company used license plate readers in private parking lots, cross-referenced plates against state DMV records without consent, and mailed notices demanding $94.99—styled to resemble official citations—for unpaid parking charges. The plaintiff sought nationwide class certification and added Florida consumer-protection claims.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has opened a criminal investigation into OpenAI following the April 17, 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University. Gunman Phoenix Ikner killed two people and injured seven others outside the student union. Chat logs reveal that minutes before the attack, Ikner used ChatGPT to ask about removing a shotgun's safety, optimal weapons and ammunition for close-range crowded areas, and peak crowd times and locations on campus. ChatGPT provided detailed responses without explicitly promoting violence. Uthmeier's office has issued subpoenas demanding OpenAI's information on its training methods, safety protocols, and procedures for handling harmful user requests. Prosecutors believe that if a human had provided such guidance, they would face murder charges as an aider and abettor under Florida law.

Mercor, a $10 billion San Francisco AI startup that supplies training data to OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, is defending itself against at least seven class-action lawsuits filed in recent weeks. The suits stem from a data breach last month that exposed contractor information including recorded job interviews, facial biometric data, computer screenshots, and background checks. Plaintiffs allege Mercor violated federal privacy regulations by collecting extensive data through monitoring software like Insightful, sharing it with AI partners, and using interviews and proprietary materials to train models without adequate consent or disclosure.

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a consolidated decision in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. holding that Illinois' August 2024 amendment to the Biometric Information Privacy Act applies retroactively to all pending cases. The amendment, enacted as SB 2979, caps statutory damages at one recovery per person per biometric collection method—eliminating the "per-scan" liability model that had exposed defendants to exponentially higher exposure. The court reversed three unanimous district court decisions from the Northern District of Illinois that had ruled the amendment applied only to future claims.

Corporate legal departments are adopting AI tools primarily to justify reducing their reliance on outside counsel from major law firms—a strategic pivot that marks a fundamental shift in how companies manage legal spending and defend their in-house legal budgets.

Anthropic has asked a California federal judge to rule that its use of copyrighted materials to train Claude qualifies as transformative fair use, comparing the AI's training process to how humans learn by reading and absorbing themes. The filing stands apart from the $1.5 billion class-action settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic, where the claims deadline passed on March 30, 2026, and a fairness hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2026, in San Francisco federal court.

Singer Dua Lipa sued Samsung for $15 million on May 8, 2026, in federal court in California, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, right of publicity violations, and false endorsement under state law and the Lanham Act. The dispute centers on a backstage photograph taken at the 2024 Austin City Limits Festival—an image Lipa owns—that Samsung allegedly manipulated and used on television packaging and global marketing materials beginning in early 2025 without permission, payment, or her involvement. Lipa claims the placement implied her endorsement of Samsung products and drove sales.

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously held that Illinois' August 2024 amendment to the Biometric Information Privacy Act applies retroactively to all pending cases. In Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (consolidated with Willis and Gregg), the court classified the amendment as procedural rather than substantive, allowing it to govern cases filed before its effective date. The amendment fundamentally restructures BIPA damages by capping recovery at $1,000 per violation for negligent violations and $5,000 for intentional ones—eliminating the "per-scan" theory that previously allowed plaintiffs to multiply damages across each biometric collection or transmission event.

The Federal Trade Commission's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees took effect on May 12, 2025, requiring companies to disclose total prices upfront for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, including all mandatory fees. The rule has accelerated an already-steep rise in junk fee litigation across ticketing, hospitality, banking, and rental industries. Class actions and mass arbitrations alleging "drip pricing"—the practice of hiding or misrepresenting fees until late in transactions—have spiked since 2022, with potential exposures exceeding $10 million per case. California's SB 478, effective July 1, 2024, compounds liability by imposing penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Plaintiffs' firms are pursuing coordinated mass arbitrations against ticket sellers, banks, landlords, and online retailers, often bypassing class-action waivers through arbitration clauses.