Courts on AI / monthly digest
What courts said about AI in June 2025
4 court-authored documents filed this month that substantively discuss generative AI. Substantive AI law courts cite 2 · Court rules adopted by opinion or order 2.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face- Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
· U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Substantive AI law courts cite
The Northern District of California grants Meta partial summary judgment on fair use for copying authors’ books to train Llama. The order stresses generative AI’s potential market harms while finding the plaintiffs’ record inadequate to defeat fair use in this case.
- Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
· U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Substantive AI law courts cite
The Northern District of California rules on Anthropic’s book copying for Claude and related language models. Judge Alsup distinguishes training from maintaining a central library, finding transformative fair use for training while allowing claims about pirated library retention to proceed.
- In re Creation of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25. Artificial Intelligence
· Supreme Court of Arkansas · Court rules adopted by opinion or order
The Arkansas Supreme Court proposes Administrative Order No. 25, a court-system AI rule focused first on generative-AI use with confidential court data. The opinion invites comments while warning that lawyers, court personnel, and the public may use AI intentionally or inadvertently.
- In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct
· Supreme Court of Arkansas · Court rules adopted by opinion or order
The Arkansas Supreme Court publishes for comment professional-conduct amendments responding to artificial intelligence in legal practice. The per curiam order describes joint study by court and bar committees and proposes changes clarifying lawyers’ duties when using nonhuman assistance.