Experts Appointed to Oversee AI Copyright Lawsuits

Courts leverage special masters to navigate technical complexities in class certification

Published on Feb. 17, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

As generative AI technology advances, a wave of copyright class action lawsuits has emerged against AI developers accused of scraping and using protected works in their training datasets. However, these AI copyright class actions face significant procedural hurdles under current class certification standards, with courts struggling to resolve the technical complexities involved. In response, district courts are increasingly appointing expert special masters under Rule 53 to provide guidance on e-discovery disputes and assist with the certification analysis, helping to overcome informational asymmetries between the parties.

Why it matters

The rise of generative AI has disrupted traditional notions of copyright and authorship, leading to a surge of lawsuits by creators seeking to protect their intellectual property. But the opaque nature of AI training methodologies and the individualized nature of copyright infringement claims have made these cases difficult to certify as class actions. By leveraging expert special masters, courts aim to enhance fairness, maintain doctrinal integrity, and reserve the class action device for situations where it is particularly apt.

The details

Generative AI models like large language models (LLMs) and diffusion models are trained on massive datasets of text, images, and other copyrighted works in order to learn patterns and generate new content. This training process often involves scraping and ingesting protected works without permission, leading to allegations of widespread copyright infringement. However, the technical complexities of these AI systems, including issues like verbatim memorization and dataset opacity, have made it challenging for plaintiffs to establish the predominance and ascertainability required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Courts are responding by more readily granting issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) to resolve common liability questions, and appointing Rule 53 special masters to provide technical expertise on e-discovery disputes and the certification analysis.

  • In the past few years, a wave of copyright class action lawsuits has been filed against AI developers.
  • Courts have recently begun appointing expert special masters under Rule 53 to assist with technical aspects of AI copyright class actions.

The players

Generative AI

Advanced machine learning models that can generate new text, images, and other content by learning patterns from massive training datasets.

Copyright Holders

Authors, artists, musicians, and other creators who allege their copyrighted works have been used without permission to train generative AI systems.

AI Developers

Technology companies that have built and deployed generative AI models, which are accused of infringing on copyrights through their training practices.

District Courts

Federal courts that are presiding over the AI copyright class action lawsuits and leveraging procedural tools like issue class certification and special masters to navigate the technical complexities.

Rule 23

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that governs class action lawsuits, including the requirements for class certification.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

As the AI copyright litigation landscape continues to evolve, courts may need to further adapt procedural tools and seek legislative guidance to balance innovation and creative protection.

The takeaway

By leveraging issue class certification and court-appointed technical experts, district courts are finding creative ways to navigate the unique challenges posed by AI copyright class actions and ensure fair outcomes, despite the lack of clear precedent or legislative direction.