News Media Alliance Files Amicus Brief In Thomson Reuters V Ross

On November 26, the News/Media Alliance filed an amicus brief in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., a case concerning Ross Intelligence’s unauthorized use of Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw headnotes to build an AI-powered legal search engine to compete directly with Westlaw. The brief, in support of Thomson Reuters, highlighted news publishers’ reliance on copyright to protect their investment in quality journalism, and noted that uses like Ross’ undermine their ability to create and disseminate original... The brief argued that the district court had correctly found Ross’ use of over 2,000 headnotes infringing, and urged the circuit court to uphold the basic fair use tenet that one may not engage... Noting that Ross’ use was commercial and not transformative, and that the fair use precedents relied on by Ross were readily distinguishable, the brief also argued that “enabling AI companies to divert users away... Read the full brief here.

On Nov. 26, the News/Media Alliance filed an amicus brief in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., a case concerning Ross Intelligence’s unauthorized use of Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw headnotes to build an AI-powered legal search engine to compete directly with Westlaw. The brief, in support of Thomson Reuters, highlighted news publishers’ reliance on copyright to protect their investment in quality journalism, and noted that uses like Ross’ undermine their ability to create and disseminate original... The brief argued that the district court had correctly found Ross’ use of over 2,000 headnotes infringing, and urged the circuit court to uphold the basic fair use tenet that one may not engage... Click here to read more (including the full brief)

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here Newsrooms aren’t just understaffed — they’re outpaced by an internet that now produces more content in an hour than many local outlets publish in a week. In E&P’s latest sponsored webinar, former Google news lead and current director of product for Nota, Anntao Diaz, argued that AI isn’t the threat most journalists fear but the accelerant exposing an industry already... He then showed, in real time, how a single municipal meeting could be transformed into a publishable, SEO-optimized story in minutes — without replacing the reporter. His message was clear: in the fight for relevance, cadence and originality are no longer optional. The long-running copyright litigation between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence is now pending in the 3rd U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals for an interlocutory appeal of the trial judge’s rulings in favor of TR. Recently here, I reported on the 10 amicus curiae briefs filed in support of ROSS, all arguing that the now-defunct AI legal research startup did not violate copyright law. Now, nine amicus briefs have been filed in support of TR. Those filing briefs range from major movie studios such as Disney and Paramount, to news media and copyright organizations, to individual copyright law professors, and even to TR’s principal competitor LexisNexis. (Note: All of my stories covering this case back to 2020 can be found here.) The primary argument of all nine briefs is that Westlaw’s headnotes are sufficiently original to qualify for copyright and that ROSS’s unauthorized copying of them to build its AI legal research platform was not...

The nuanced and multi-faceted copyright litigation between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence has reached the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal originates from the trial judge’s rulings which sided with Thomson Reuters, challenging the notion of copyright and fair use concerning AI-generated legal research platforms. Notably, nine amicus briefs have rallied in support of Thomson Reuters, coming from diverse sectors including major film studios, news media, copyright organizations, and a surprising stakeholder—its principal competitor, LexisNexis. These supportive briefs, filed by industry heavyweights such as Disney, Paramount, Sony, and notable legal publishers, center their arguments around the originality of Westlaw’s headnotes. They contend that these editorial contributions possess sufficient creativity and are therefore entitled to copyright protection, countering ROSS’s unauthorized use as a competitive substitute, rather than fair use.

Each brief underscores the potential impacts on their respective fields were the court to interpret copyright law more leniently in this context. For instance, the major film studios argue against establishing a new precedent for AI exemptions in fair use, cautioning that such a shift could undermine established copyright protections essential for their industries. Similarly, the News/Media Alliance highlights parallels to news scraping, warning that allowing ROSS’s actions could pave the way for AI models to freely exploit news content, thereby destabilizing journalism’s financial foundations. Adding a competitive twist to the proceedings, LexisNexis’ involvement emphasizes the stakes for the legal publishing industry. If Westlaw’s headnotes are deemed uncopyrightable, LexisNexis’s similar products could be at risk. Their brief argues that denying protection would dismantle the economic infrastructure supporting legal editors and researchers, pointing to a potential decline in quality and access in legal research.

This litigation reflects broader concerns over the interaction of AI and copyright law. The stakes extend beyond the legal research community, touching on multiple technology and media sectors reliant on the protection and commercial potential of creative and expressive works. This case stands as a significant touchpoint in defining the boundaries of copyright in the age of AI. WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Re:Create members and allies filed amicus briefs in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence in support of ROSS Intelligence, which is asking U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling that found the company’s AI training infringed on copyrights. Member organizations, including ALA, ARL, CCIA, EFF, and Public Knowledge submitted briefs emphasizing that reversing the lower court’s decision is essential to protecting fair use, fostering U.S. innovation, and preserving competition. “The amicus briefs filed by Re:Create members and others today will ensure that the Third Circuit considers the full range of stakeholders in the copyright system as it pens what may well be the... “Thomson Reuters cannot secure a monopoly over the law by transcribing it into a ‘system’ of rote paraphrases anymore than I can make myself the author of the Mona Lisa by snapping a picture... And even if copyright did apply to the West Headnotes system, that couldn’t stop competitors like Ross from building something new, thanks to fair use.”

In March, Butler shared more insights on the case in a Law360 op-ed, which criticized the opinion, highlighting its potential to hinder innovation and creativity in the U.S. If you’d like to talk to Executive Director Brandon Butler to hear more about the merits of this case, please contact press@recreatecoalition.com. Last week, Tim Hwang, with help from Sam Roland and Joshua Levine, filed an amicus brief regarding Thomson Reuters et al. v. Ross. This case presents a narrow question with broad consequences: when a developer copies text at a nonpublic, intermediate stage to train an AI model, and the user‑facing outputs are functional content (here, judicial opinions)—not...

Though the lower court attempted to differentiate this case from new generative AI models, stating explicitly “Ross’s AI is not generative AI,” the analysis the court conducts belies the attempt.2 Mem. Op. at 17–18. Nearly all AI models, whether search, text, vision, or other, undertake the same process of intermediate training and public output. Therefore, the reasoning of this Court—particularly as the first appeals circuit to rule on this issue—will establish an important precedent on all AI fair use. Below, we have provided our view on the most faithful reading of the applicable law in this novel context.

The rule emerging from statute and precedent is clear: factor one favors fair use when (1) the use of the copy at issue is an intermediate step to achieve an end distinct from the... The rule has clear limits that protect the interests of the rightsholder. These limits preserve incentives for expressive works while supporting the continued progress in AI methods that is key to our nation's economic vitality. It does not excuse training or deployment that stores or outputs the plaintiff’s prose (or derivative summaries) to end users; it does not excuse copying beyond what is reasonably necessary where less expressive alternatives... Those uses would defeat the presumption and create expressive substitution cognizable under 17 U.S.C. § 107(4).

The statute draws two lines. Section 107 separates purpose/character from market effect; 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 103(b) limit protection to original expression, not ideas, facts, methods of operation, systems, or law/taxonomy. Any rule must keep factors one and four distinct. Precedent then supplies the standard. Warhol centers the “use at issue” and presumes factor one weighs against fair use when purposes are the same and the use is commercial—unless there is “other justification.” Andy Warhol Found.

for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 532–33 (2023). That justification is the settled doctrine permitting nonpublic, proportional intermediate copying to reach functional elements. The justification is derived from a line of cases dealing with functional learning rather than public communication, thereby supplying Warhol’s “other justification.” Factor four then asks only about markets for protected expression and traditional...

Because outputs are opinions only, the relevant market is licensing of or replacement headnote text, and a bare nonpublic “license to be trained on” is not a market for expression; no cognizable harm appears... This Court should adopt the rule above and evaluate the record accordingly: treat nonpublic, reasonably necessary functional training as satisfying factor one and confine factor-four markets to expression and traditional derivatives. Two attorneys, one using Westlaw and Headnotes, the other prompting an AI legal tool. Images are meant to be broadly illustrative and are not intended to be accurate in every detail. Yesterday Authors Alliance filed an amicus brief in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, the long-running lawsuit between Thomson Reuters, owner of Westlaw (a legal research platform) and ROSS Intelligence, an AI-powered start up legal research platform.

The suit is about ROSS’s use of Thomson Reuters’ Headnotes (concise summaries of legal points within cases) to create training data for its own AI-driven legal research platform. While no headnotes were reproduced in the ROSS system outputs, Thomson Reuters sued based on ROSS’s access and use of the headnotes in the intermediate step of training its system. Though the suit is different in many ways from other generative AI lawsuits winding their way through the courts, this one is significant because it is the first time a US Circuit Court will... We published a post back in February explaining the lower court’s decision, of which we are quite critical on several key points. ROSS filed its opening brief a week ago, raising two principal arguments: On November 25, 2025, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) filed an amicus brief in the important AI case Thomson Reuters v.

ROSS, an infringement suit first brought by Thomson Reuters and West Publishing in May 2020 in response to ROSS’s unauthorized use of copyrighted material to train its AI system, including material that copied and... The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit following the February 2025 opinion of the U.S. District Court for Delaware finding ROSS squarely liable for infringement. AAP’s brief urges the appeals court to affirm the district court’s decision by similarly rejecting ROSS’s fair use arguments as fundamentally inconsistent with copyright precedent, including by rejecting the premise that ROSS’s unabashed copying... Moreover, the brief emphasizes, the district court properly concluded that ROSS’s AI product directly competed with the Westlaw legal research database and would harm the AI training market. “Delaware was the first in the nation to recognize that usurping copyrighted materials for AI training is infringement not innovation, and that such actions harm the ongoing development and long-term potential of licensing markets,”...

Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers. “There is no sweeping exception to copyright law that gives AI companies a free pass to usurp the expression of authors and publishers for commercial gain. We hope the Third Circuit will reinforce the rights of copyright owners to authorize, not suffer, the use of their intellectual property in AI products and tools, and to participate financially in the derivative... Like the many technologies before AI that have leveraged and depended upon valuable works of authorship for profit and success, AI is a market to which copyright owners are fundamentally entitled.” The chart below lists key licensing agreements for textual works that have been publicly reported. AAP’s full amicus brief can be found here.

People Also Search

• News/Media Alliance Files Amicus Brief in Thomson Reuters v. Ross ...
• Film Studios, News Media and Even Competitor LexisNexis Among the Nine ...
• Thomson Reuters vs. ROSS: 3rd Circuit Hears Landmark Copyright Case ...
• Re:Create Members & Allies File Thomson Reuters v. Ross Amicus Brief In ...
• Amicus Brief in Thomson Reuters v. Ross - thefai.org
• Authors Alliance Files Amicus Brief in Thomson Reuters v. Ross
• Association of American Publishers Files Amicus Brief in Support of ...
• PDF Thomson Reuters v ROSS Innovators Amici Brief FINAL
• Amicus Briefs | Copyright Alliance