AI Litigation Landscape 2025: Comprehensive Guide to AI Lawsuits

The AI Litigation Explosion

#

Artificial intelligence litigation has reached an inflection point. From copyright battles over training data to employment discrimination class actions, from product liability claims for AI chatbots to healthcare AI denial lawsuits, 2025 has seen an unprecedented wave of cases that will define AI accountability for decades to come.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the AI litigation landscape, the major case categories, landmark rulings, key statistics, and what they mean for developers, deployers, and those harmed by AI systems.

Copyright Litigation

#

The Training Data Battle

#

Copyright litigation over AI training data represents the largest coordinated legal challenge to the AI industry. Content creators are suing tech giants for using copyrighted material, books, articles, images, music, to train models without permission.

MDL Consolidation: In April 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated over a dozen copyright cases into In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs include The New York Times, Raw Story Media, The Intercept, and the Authors Guild.

Major Defendants:

• OpenAI and Microsoft (GPT models, Copilot)
• Meta (Llama models)
• Anthropic (Claude)
• Google (Gemini, Bard)
• Stability AI (Stable Diffusion)
• Midjourney

Landmark 2025 Rulings

#

Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence (February 2025): Delaware federal court issued the first major decision on AI training data copyright. The ruling addressed whether copying copyrighted content to train AI constitutes infringement.

Anthropic and Meta Victories (June 2025): Both companies won significant rulings in separate cases examining whether training on copyrighted books without permission violated copyright law. These are the first major decisions favoring AI companies in training data disputes.

Key Legal Questions

#

Employment Discrimination

#

AI Hiring Tool Liability

#

AI-powered hiring tools face unprecedented legal scrutiny as courts recognize that algorithmic bias can constitute employment discrimination.

Mobley v. Workday (N.D. Cal.): The landmark case challenging AI hiring discrimination reached class certification in May 2025:

• Class Definition: Job applicants age 40+ rejected by Workday’s AI since September 2020
• Scale: 1.1 billion applications potentially affected
• Legal Theory: Disparate impact under ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)
• Significance: First federal court to certify class action against AI hiring vendor

See our detailed tracker: Mobley v. Workday Class Action

ACLU/HireVue Complaint (March 2025): Civil rights groups filed discrimination complaint against Intuit and HireVue:

• Plaintiff: Indigenous and Deaf woman penalized by video interview AI
• Claims: ADA, Title VII, Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
• Theory: AI penalized speech patterns and lack of typical vocal cues

Agent Liability Theory

#

The Mobley case established that AI vendors can be directly liable for employment discrimination, not just the employers using their tools:

• AI vendor acts as “agent” when making screening decisions
• Vendor controls the discriminatory mechanism
• Employer’s lack of intent doesn’t shield vendor

Implications for AI Vendors: All AI hiring tools face potential direct liability: HireVue, Pymetrics, Eightfold, and similar platforms.

Product Liability

#

AI as a “Product”

#

The most significant development in AI liability law: courts are now treating AI software as a product subject to traditional strict liability.

Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla., May 2025): A federal court ruled that AI chatbots are products, not protected speech:

• Holding: Character.AI’s chatbot is a “product” for strict liability purposes
• First Amendment: Court rejected defense that AI outputs are protected speech
• Design Defect: Claims allowed based on “Garbage In, Garbage Out” theory
• Significance: First federal ruling treating AI software as strict liability product

See our detailed analysis: AI Software as a Product

AI LEAD Act

#

Federal legislation would codify AI as products subject to liability:

• Sponsors: Senators Hawley (R-MO) and Durbin (D-IL)
• Key Provision: Classifies AI systems as “products” under federal law
• Cause of Action: Creates federal products liability claim for AI harm
• Limitations Waiver: Prohibits contractual limitation of AI liability
• Status: Pending; Senate Judiciary hearings held September 2025

Product Liability Categories

#

Healthcare AI Litigation

#

Insurance Denial Lawsuits

#

Major health insurers face class actions over AI-powered claim denials:

UnitedHealth/nH Predict:

• Algorithm allegedly denies claims with 90% error rate on appeal
• Overrides physician recommendations
• Moving forward in federal court

Cigna/PxDx:

• Rejected 300,000+ claims in two months
• Average review time: 1.2 seconds per claim
• Class action pending

Humana:

• Similar allegations of systematic AI denials
• Pattern of automatic rejections

See our detailed guide: AI Insurance Claim Denials

Medical Misdiagnosis

#

AI diagnostic tools face liability when they err:

• Radiology AI: False negatives in cancer screening
• Sepsis Prediction: Epic algorithm criticized for poor performance
• Dermatology AI: Racial bias in skin condition diagnosis

See our tracker: AI Misdiagnosis Case Tracker

Workers’ Compensation AI

#

States are responding to AI-driven workers’ comp denials:

• Florida SB 794 (2025): Requires human review of all AI claim denials
• California: Prohibits AI-only coverage denials

See our guide: AI Workers’ Comp Denials

Biometric Privacy

#

BIPA Litigation Explosion

#

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act continues driving major settlements:

Clearview AI Settlement (March 2025):

• Value: $51.75 million (23% equity stake)
• Class: Anyone with photos scraped from internet
• Significance: Largest biometric privacy settlement

See our guide: Clearview AI Settlement (humanoidliability)

Prior Major Settlements:

• Facebook: $650 million (2022)
• TikTok: $92 million (2021)
• Google: $100 million (2022)

State Privacy Laws

#

Beyond Illinois BIPA:

• Texas CUBI: AG enforcement only
• Washington: Limited biometric protections
• New York City Local Law 144: Bias audits for AI hiring

AI Chatbot Harm

#

Character.AI Lawsuits

#

Multiple lawsuits allege AI companion chatbots caused deaths:

Florida (Sewell Setzer):

• 14-year-old died by suicide after chatbot interactions
• Chatbot allegedly encouraged self-harm
• Basis for Garcia v. Character Technologies product liability ruling

Texas (December 2024):

• Two families filed federal suit
• 9-year-old exposed to hypersexualized content
• 17-year-old encouraged to self-harm

OpenAI/ChatGPT Lawsuits

#

Seven lawsuits filed in November 2025 against OpenAI:

• Four allege ChatGPT role in suicides
• Three allege reinforcement of harmful delusions
• Legal theories: wrongful death, assisted suicide, negligence

Regulatory Response

#

California SB 243:

• First state law regulating AI companion chatbots
• Suicide monitoring requirements
• Age verification mandates
• $250,000 penalties per violation
• Effective January 2026

Debt Collection and Consumer Finance

#

AI Collection Violations

#

Debt collectors deploying AI face FDCPA exposure:

• Voice Cloning: Disclosure requirements unclear
• Contact Frequency: AI must respect 7-in-7 limits
• Algorithmic Bias: Disparate impact concerns

CFPB Position: FDCPA applies regardless of human or AI contact

See our guide: AI Debt Collection and FDCPA

Financial Services AI

#

Robo-advisers and financial AI face fiduciary scrutiny:

• Suitability determinations by algorithm
• Disclosure of AI limitations
• Performance claims and accuracy

See our guide: Robo-Adviser Liability

State-by-State Regulatory Landscape

#

AI-Specific Legislation

#

2025 Legislative Activity

#

The Future of Privacy Forum tracked 210 bills across 42 states in 2025 addressing AI. Every state plus DC, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands introduced AI legislation.

Building the AI Liability Framework

#

Multi-Party Liability

#

AI harm cases typically involve multiple defendants:

Evidence Challenges

#

AI litigation presents unique evidence issues:

• Black Box Problem: Understanding why AI made decisions
• Data Preservation: Training data, model versions, logs
• Expert Requirements: Technical expertise for causation
• Discovery Complexity: Proprietary algorithm claims

Emerging Theories

#

New legal theories developing for AI harm:

• Agent Liability: AI vendor as employer’s agent (Mobley)
• Strict Product Liability: AI as defective product (Garcia)
• Algorithmic Accountability: Disparate impact without intent
• Autonomous Decision Liability: AI acting independently

Implications by Stakeholder

#

For AI Developers

#

Immediate Actions:

• Implement bias testing and documentation
• Maintain training data records
• Create explainability features
• Establish human oversight mechanisms
• Review liability insurance coverage

For Organizations Deploying AI

#

Risk Mitigation:

• Audit AI vendor relationships
• Maintain human review of consequential decisions
• Document due diligence in AI selection
• Monitor outcomes for disparate impact
• Establish AI governance programs

For Those Harmed by AI

#

Potential Claims:

• Product liability against AI developers
• Negligence against deployers
• Discrimination under civil rights laws
• Consumer protection violations
• Privacy law violations

Related Resources

#

Case Trackers

#

• Mobley v. Workday Class Action
• AI Misdiagnosis Case Tracker

Liability Analysis

#

• AI Product Liability
• AI Software as a Product
• Agentic AI Liability

Industry-Specific

#

• AI Workers’ Comp Denials
• AI Debt Collection FDCPA
• AI Insurance Coverage

External Resources

#

• McKool Smith AI Litigation Tracker
• TechPolicy.Press AI Lawsuits Guide
• BakerHostetler AI Copyright Tracker