Grammarly’s “Expert Review” feature used the names of hundreds of real writers to sell AI-generated editing advice, without obtaining consent. A class action complaint in the Southern District of New York frames the case not as a copyright dispute, but as a straightforward violation of century-old right-of-publicity laws.

A federal court in the Northern District of California has enjoined OpenAI from using the name “Cameo” for a feature on its Sora video-generation application, finding that the celebrity video marketplace Cameo is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim. The ruling applies established trademark doctrine to AI feature branding and rejects OpenAI’s argument that “cameo” is merely descriptive.

On March 30, 2026, a Colorado federal court held that a pro se litigant’s AI-generated litigation materials are protected work product, then wrote its own protective order provision that effectively bars consumer AI platforms from processing confidential discovery materials.

The ruling underscores that no matter how egregious an employee’s conduct, a trade secret claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) requires allegations that the defendant acquired, induced, or used the stolen information, not just that it hired the people who took it.

A federal magistrate judge in Michigan ruled that a pro se plaintiff’s AI-generated litigation materials are protected by the work product doctrine, and that using ChatGPT does not waive that protection. The decision creates a direct split with the Southern District of New York’s ruling in United States v. Heppner on the same issue, issued on the very same day.

On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled that documents a criminal defendant generated using Anthropic's Claude AI are neither protected by the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine.