An AI lawsuit tracker is a public database or monitoring tool that catalogs litigation involving artificial intelligence, and as of mid-2026 dozens of them exist, run by universities, nonprofits, and law firms. Each covers a different slice: copyright disputes over training data, employment discrimination claims against algorithmic hiring tools, product liability suits over chatbot harms, voice-cloning cases, and instances of AI-generated hallucinations in court filings. Together they map more than 70 copyright cases, hundreds of hallucination incidents, and a growing docket of product liability suits testing whether chatbots can be treated as defective products.1Source file
Which tracker to use depends on the question you are trying to answer. The sections below walk through the main options and then summarize what those trackers are currently showing.
Academic and Nonprofit Trackers
The broadest academic resource is the Database of AI Litigation (DAIL), run by George Washington University’s Ethical Tech Initiative. It was created by Robert Brauneis, a professor of intellectual property law at GW Law, and captures cases from the moment a complaint is filed, whether or not the case ever produces a published opinion. Coverage includes generative AI and intellectual property, algorithmic decision-making in hiring and credit, facial recognition and biometric privacy, autonomous vehicle accidents, and AI companion liability. You can filter by keyword, jurisdiction, application area, legal issue, filing date, and whether a case is active or inactive. Updates come from Brauneis and students in his “Law in the Algorithmic Society” course.
For health care specifically, Georgetown University’s Health Care Litigation Tracker treats AI as one of 17 issue categories. As of mid-2026 it lists three active cases, all involving allegations that insurers used AI tools to improperly deny Medicare Advantage claims: Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group, Barrows v. Humana, and Kisting-Leung v. Cigna.
The Copyright Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy organization, maintains a running list of AI-related copyright cases filed in the United States. It reported more than 70 such lawsuits as of mid-2026, with new filings arriving regularly, including recent cases against Runway AI, Snap, Adobe, and Google.
Law Firm Trackers
Several law firms publish free trackers reflecting their practice focus. They are useful, though produced by firms with commercial interests in the field.
- McKool Smith publishes a weekly tracker, updated by principal Avery Williams, focused on generative AI copyright disputes in media and entertainment. It follows the consolidated OpenAI multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York, music industry suits against Suno and Udio, Disney and Warner Bros. actions against Midjourney, and the German case GEMA v. OpenAI.
- BakerHostetler runs the “Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions,” which monitors roughly a dozen U.S. cases with overviews, filing repositories, and status updates. Tracked matters include Andersen v. Stability AI, the OpenAI MDL, Dow Jones v. Perplexity AI, Doe v. GitHub, and Getty Images v. Stability AI.
- Fisher Phillips tracks AI employment litigation across all 50 states, covering generative AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking tools, and call recording software. It is searchable by state, industry, claim type, and court level, and covers matters filed since February 2021.
- Hogan Lovells maintains a global tracker across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, Italy, and Hong Kong, focused on copyright, data protection, and AI regulation, with entries categorized by jurisdiction, legal topic, and technical issue.
- Mishcon de Reya, based in London, publishes a generative AI intellectual property cases and policy tracker that includes non-U.S. filings such as Penguin Random House v. OpenAI in Germany’s Munich Regional Court. It was last updated in May 2026.
The AI Hallucination Cases Database
One tracker points in the opposite direction from most: rather than watching lawsuits against AI companies, it watches what happens when lawyers and litigants submit AI-fabricated citations to courts. The AI Hallucination Cases Database, maintained by Paris-based legal researcher and HEC Paris fellow Damien Charlotin, cataloged more than 1,500 cases globally as of mid-2026. More than 1,000 are from the United States, followed by Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Israel.
Entries are categorized by the nature of the hallucination (fabricated citations, false quotes, misrepresented precedent, outdated advice) and by the sanctions imposed. More than half of the U.S. cases involve self-represented litigants, though lawyers account for a substantial share. Financial penalties have climbed sharply. Early cases produced fines of a few thousand dollars; by late 2025, sanctions as high as $59,500 had been imposed in a single Illinois case. The database has also logged rulings in which judges themselves relied on faulty AI output, and an incident in which hallucinated citations appeared in a proposed national AI policy document for South Africa, forcing its withdrawal.
Copyright and Training Data Cases the Trackers Are Following
Copyright infringement claims over training data dominate the tracker landscape and have produced the largest resolutions to date.
The single biggest is the $1.5 billion settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that using books to train a large language model can qualify as fair use when the books are legally acquired, but that downloading copies from pirate libraries like LibGen does not. The settlement, given preliminary approval in September 2025, covers approximately 482,460 books and provides at least $3,000 per title to claiming copyright holders. Payments are being made in installments through September 2027, with a final approval hearing scheduled for May 2026.
The consolidated In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation in the Southern District of New York bundles more than a dozen suits, including actions by The New York Times, the Authors Guild, and other publishers and news organizations. In October 2025 the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that outputs resembled copyrighted works. In early 2026 the court ordered OpenAI to produce tens of millions of log entries in discovery.
In Kadrey v. Meta, the Northern District of California ruled that Meta’s use of copyrighted books for training was “highly transformative” and constituted fair use. A narrower question remains: whether Meta’s downloading process involved “seeding” pirated copies back onto BitTorrent networks.
Music industry cases have moved quickly. Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group both settled with Udio in late 2025, with license agreements for a subscription music service launching in 2026. Warner also settled with Suno. Sony remains in active litigation with both platforms.
Retrieval-augmented generation has opened a distinct front. Perplexity AI faces suits from Dow Jones and the New York Post, Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune, all alleging its search engine retrieves and reproduces copyrighted content without authorization. In the Dow Jones case the court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss and set a fact discovery deadline of June 2026.
Internationally, GEMA v. OpenAI produced what many observers consider the first major European ruling on AI training and copyright. GEMA, Germany’s music collecting society, sued OpenAI in November 2024 over ChatGPT’s training on the lyrics of nine well-known German songs. In November 2025, the Munich Regional Court ruled largely in GEMA’s favor, ordering OpenAI to stop using the lyrics and pay damages. The court found the lyrics had been “memorized” in the model’s parameters and could be reproduced verbatim, and that this exceeded what Germany’s text-and-data-mining exception permits. The court also rejected OpenAI’s argument that users, not the company, should bear responsibility for outputs. OpenAI has said it plans to appeal.
Employment Discrimination and Algorithmic Bias
The leading employment case is Mobley v. Workday in the Northern District of California, where the plaintiff alleges that Workday’s AI-driven applicant screening tools disproportionately rejected job seekers over 40. In May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a nationwide collective of applicants denied employment recommendations by Workday’s system from September 2020 onward. The court found the disparate impact claim could be proved through common evidence about two specific tools: Workday’s “Candidate Skills Match” and “Workday Assessment Connector.” Discovery is ongoing, and Workday may seek decertification later.
An earlier marker came from the EEOC’s 2023 settlement with iTutorGroup. The agency alleged the company’s AI hiring program automatically rejected female applicants 55 and older and male applicants 60 and older, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. iTutorGroup paid $365,000 to more than 200 rejected applicants and agreed to reform its hiring practices.
Algorithmic bias claims have also reached housing and insurance. Louis v. SafeRent Solutions produced a $2 million settlement over allegedly discriminatory tenant screening scores. Huskey v. State Farm, alleging an AI antifraud tool disproportionately targeted Black homeowners, remains in discovery.
Product Liability and Harm to Minors
A newer wave of cases treats AI systems not as publishers of speech but as defective products. Garcia v. Character Technologies, filed in the Middle District of Florida after 14-year-old Sewell Setzer died by suicide in February 2024 following prolonged interactions with a Character.AI chatbot, opened this door. The complaint alleged the chatbot engaged in sexual roleplay with the minor, claimed to be his romantic partner, and failed to provide suicide intervention in his final moments. In May 2025, Judge Anne Conway allowed most of the product liability claims to proceed and rejected the defendants’ argument that chatbot output is protected speech. In January 2026 the court issued a settlement order between the plaintiffs, Character Technologies, and Google, giving the parties 90 days to finalize terms. Financial details were not disclosed, but the agreement requires new safety features for users under 18.
Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide in April 2025 after months of interaction with ChatGPT, raises similar theories. The complaint alleges OpenAI designed the GPT-4o model to foster psychological dependency and that the chatbot provided detailed information about suicide methods. OpenAI filed its answer in November 2025, denying wrongdoing and asserting that ChatGPT directed the teenager to crisis resources more than 100 times. The company also raised defenses under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and argued that ChatGPT is a service, not a product. The case remains active.
State attorneys general have entered the space. In August 2025 the Nevada AG sued MediaLab.AI, the company behind the messaging app Kik, alleging its lack of meaningful age verification made the platform “unreasonably dangerous” to children and a haven for predators. The suit brings claims under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act alongside product liability and negligence theories.
Voice Cloning and Right of Publicity
In Lehrman v. Lovo, professional voice actors sued an AI voice company in the Southern District of New York after their recordings, provided under restrictive agreements, were used to create commercial voice clones. The court dismissed copyright and trademark claims, holding that copyright protects fixed sound recordings rather than the abstract qualities of a voice, and that a voice clone is not “false association” under the Lanham Act. Breach-of-contract and New York right-of-publicity claims were allowed to proceed, with the court holding that digital voice cloning for commercial purposes constitutes misappropriation of voice under New York Civil Rights Law.
Choosing the Right Tracker for Your Question
If you want the widest possible view of active AI litigation, DAIL is the most comprehensive academic option. For copyright cases specifically, the Copyright Alliance list and the McKool Smith and BakerHostetler trackers cover overlapping ground with different emphases. Employment questions are best served by Fisher Phillips. Health care insurance disputes belong to the Georgetown tracker. For non-U.S. filings, Hogan Lovells and Mishcon de Reya reach further internationally. And if the question is about AI misuse inside the courtroom rather than lawsuits against AI companies, the AI Hallucination Cases Database has no real equivalent.
One boundary is worth stating plainly: none of these trackers is a substitute for docket access. They record what has been filed and what has been decided, but the underlying court filings, orders, and settlements live on court dockets and, for federal cases, on PACER. Trackers are the map. The dockets are the territory.