AI, Copyright, and the Law: What Businesses Need to Know About the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence Decision

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) is pushing the boundaries of intellectual property law, and a recent landmark decision in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence has implications for businesses, particularly in the realm of copyright protection and AI-generated content ownership.

The Case at a Glance

Thomson Reuters, the owner of the Westlaw legal research platform, sued Ross Intelligence, an AI-driven legal research company, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit centered on Ross Intelligence’s alleged use of Westlaw’s copyrighted legal annotations to train its AI system. Recently, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters, rejecting Ross Intelligence’s defense of fair use and underscoring the importance of obtaining proper authorization for copyrighted material used in AI training.

This ruling marks one of the first major U.S. court decisions addressing AI’s use of proprietary content, setting a precedent that could shape future legal battles over AI-generated works and the datasets used to train them.

Implications for Businesses

The decision in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence is a wake-up call for corporate counsel, entrepreneurs, and business leaders navigating the intersection of AI and intellectual property law. It raises key legal considerations across multiple areas, including copyright, fair use, and competitive risks.

1. Copyright Protection and AI Training Data

A core issue in the case was whether AI companies can use copyrighted material to train their systems under fair use protections. The court’s ruling suggests that AI developers must be more diligent in ensuring their training datasets do not infringe on existing copyrights. Businesses using AI tools—whether developing their own models or licensing third-party AI solutions—should conduct due diligence to confirm compliance with AI copyright law and intellectual property regulations.

2. The Limits of Fair Use in AI Development

Fair use is a complex and evolving legal doctrine that balances innovation with copyright protection. The court rejected Ross Intelligence’s fair use argument, signaling that AI developers cannot rely on fair use as a blanket defense when incorporating copyrighted content into training data. This decision echoes similar concerns raised in ongoing litigation involving OpenAI and The New York Times, which we previously examined here. The legal landscape is evolving, and businesses should stay informed about how courts define fair use in AI applications.

3. Data Privacy and Compliance Risks

Beyond copyright issues, businesses leveraging AI must also consider data privacy risks. If AI systems scrape or utilize proprietary or personal data, companies could face legal challenges under data privacy laws such as the GDPR or CCPA. Organizations should ensure that AI tools comply with applicable regulations and have mechanisms in place to manage AI training data legally and transparently.

4. Competitive and Market Impacts

This ruling may influence competitive dynamics in industries relying on AI for data-driven decision-making. Companies that develop AI models must be mindful of where they source their training data to avoid legal exposure. Meanwhile, content owners—including publishers and data aggregators—may become more aggressive in protecting their proprietary databases from AI-driven competitors. Understanding the nuances of artificial intelligence legal implications will be crucial for maintaining a competitive edge.

5. The Future of AI Regulation

This case signals a broader trend toward increased legal scrutiny of AI technologies. Policymakers and courts are still defining the legal frameworks that govern AI’s use of intellectual property, and businesses must anticipate further regulations addressing AI training practices, licensing requirements, and liability concerns. Companies investing in AI should consider proactive legal strategies, including licensing agreements and risk assessments, to ensure compliance with emerging legal standards.

The Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence decision is just one of many legal battles shaping the future of AI, but its impact is immediate and far-reaching. As AI adoption accelerates, businesses must be proactive in understanding and addressing legal risks. BoyarMiller continues to monitor and analyze these developments in order to help clients navigate copyright and intellectual property concerns.