10 The bill
Plain versionBack to the room
The exhibit is still arriving. It will wake when all of it is here.
1 of 7 The rope
“The velvet rope is the terms of service.”
2 of 7 The label
10
The bill
The Reckoning What Happens When the Music Stops
Someone still has to pick up the tab.
The record begins:
Decided On August 5, 2024, Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” in general search services and general search text ads, through exclusive distribution deals. On other claims, the same opinion ruled for Google.
Pending Google appealed; a pause was refused, for now
The fine print
10.01 Decided Memorandum Opinion, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1033), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 5, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
Google appealed on January 16, 2026; the plaintiffs cross-appealed on February 3, the day the judgment took effect. On May 7, 2026, the judge denied “without prejudice” Google’s bid to pause, during the appeal, the orders to share data with rivals and to syndicate, or supply, its search results and ads to them.
10.02 Pending Order denying Google’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1514), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · May 7, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Four questions. The record answers in its own words.
Asked?
Reported the judge: Ross asked; “Thomson Reuters refused”
Decided Google case, 2025: “little choice”; no publisher remedy
Reported Google, 2026: a setting to opt out of AI Overviews
Alleged the labels allege Suno copied “without permission”
The fine print
Ross first asked to license Westlaw’s content, the trial judge wrote: “But because Ross was its competitor, Thomson Reuters refused.” Ross then trained its tool on memos that a company called LegalEase built from Westlaw headnotes.
10.04 Reported Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del.) (D.I. 770), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · February 11, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
In 2025 Judge Mehta wrote that publishers have “little choice but to allow Google to crawl their content”; blocking only AI Overviews then meant leaving the crawl, “not a tenable choice.” He ordered no publisher remedy: no publisher testified, and liability came from deals with distributors, “not website publishers.”
10.05 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Google says that since August 31, 2026, every website can use a Search Console setting to keep out of its generative AI Search features, like AI Overviews and AI Mode. Opted-out sites get no “traffic or impressions from our generative AI features”; the setting “will not be used as a ranking signal” for other results.
10.59 Reported New opportunities, control and insights for website owners Google (The Keyword, Google’s company blog) · June 3, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
On June 24, 2024, record companies of Universal, Sony and Warner sued Suno, alleging it copied “decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” to train its AI music generator “without permission.” They asked for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.
10.06 Alleged Complaint, No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 1), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. The plaintiff record companies (UMG Recordings, Inc. and others), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · June 24, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
Headnote: an editor’s short note above a court opinion, explaining “what the law is in the abstract or the result which it compels on the facts of the case.” Westlaw’s editors are told to keep each to 800 characters where possible.
10.07 Reported Opinion of the Court, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir.), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the court's own copy) · September 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Remedies are what a court orders to “redress” a violation. “Structural relief, such as divestiture,” forces the sale of a business, as the plaintiffs sought for Chrome; “behavioral remedies” “compel Google to undertake affirmative acts or bar it from certain conduct.”
10.08 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Statutory damages: a sum set by law that a copyright owner may claim for each work instead of proving its losses, as the court decides: $750 to $30,000, up to $150,000 if infringement was willful, or down to $200 if the infringer was unaware.
10.09 Decided 17 U.S.C. § 504, Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), United States Code, 2023 edition · October 17, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
In February 2025, Chegg sued Google, alleging that “as a condition of indexing publisher content for search, Google now requires publishers to also supply that content for other uses,” such as AI Overviews, a deal publishers “do not willingly consent” to.
10.10 Alleged Complaint, No. 1:25-cv-00543 (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1), Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. Chegg, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · February 24, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On September 30, 2026, the judge dismissed Chegg’s suit, and a similar one by Penske Media. He wrote that the court was not “unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in,” but any gap in antitrust law “is an issue for Congress [or regulators] to consider.”
10.11 Decided Memorandum Opinion, No. 25-cv-00543 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 27), Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC, decided with Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-03192 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 30, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Paid?
Reported Chegg, October 2025: 388 roles (about 45%)
Reported Klarna’s full-time staff: 4,352, then 3,422, then 2,831
Reported TechCrunch: Duolingo cut “around 10%” of contractors
The fine print
On October 27, 2025, Chegg said “the new realities of AI and reduced traffic from Google to content publishers” had cut its traffic and revenue, and announced “a reduction of 388 roles globally, or approximately 45% of the workforce.”
10.12 Reported Chegg, Inc., press release of October 27, 2025 (Exhibit 99.01 to Form 8-K) Chegg, Inc. (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · October 27, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Klarna’s filing counts about 4,352, 3,422 and 2,831 full-time employees at the ends of 2023, 2024 and 2025, a fall it attributes to its “strategic decision to reduce our overall headcount and drive operational efficiency by leveraging AI in our business and focusing on what really matters to our mission.”
10.13 Reported Klarna Group plc, Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 Klarna Group plc (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · February 26, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
TechCrunch reported in January 2024 that Duolingo “confirmed it cut around 10% of its contractor workforce at the end of 2023.” The company disputed calling the departures “layoffs,” saying a “small minority” of contractors were let go as projects wrapped, and, according to Bloomberg, said part of the reason was AI.
10.14 Reported Duolingo cuts 10% of its contractor workforce as the company embraces AI TechCrunch · January 9, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
On June 17, 2024, Chegg announced a restructuring “expected to impact about 441 employees, or approximately 23% of the Company’s current workforce.”
10.15 Reported Chegg, Inc., Current Report on Form 8-K, June 17, 2024 (Item 7.01) Chegg, Inc. (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · June 17, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
On May 12, 2025, Chegg announced a plan “expected to impact 248 employees, or approximately 22% of our current workforce,” citing “ongoing industry challenges” that included “a decline in our traffic.”
10.16 Reported Chegg, Inc., Current Report on Form 8-K, May 12, 2025 (Item 2.05) Chegg, Inc. (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · May 12, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Klarna’s prospectus, dated September 9, 2025, counts about 5,527 full-time employees at the end of 2022 and about 3,098 on June 30, 2025. It says: “We expect the number of employees to continue to decrease in future periods.”
10.17 Reported Klarna Group plc, Prospectus (filed under Rule 424(b)(4), Registration No. 333-285826) Klarna Group plc (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · September 9, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Told?
Reported Duolingo, 2025: “we are going to be AI-first”
Reported the email: “gradually stop using contractors” where AI can
Reported OpenAI: the update “rolled back”
The fine print
On April 28, 2025, Duolingo shared its chief executive’s all-hands email, writing: “we are going to be AI-first.” The post went on: “What doesn’t change: We will remain a company that cares deeply about its employees.”
10.18 Reported Duolingo, LinkedIn post of April 28, 2025 (all-hands email from the chief executive) Duolingo (on LinkedIn) · April 28, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
The email listed “constructive constraints,” among them: “We’ll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle” and “Headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work.” It added that this “isn’t about replacing Duos,” its employees, “with AI.”
10.19 Reported Duolingo, LinkedIn post of April 28, 2025: the chief executive’s all-hands email, attached as a picture Duolingo (on LinkedIn) · April 28, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On April 29, 2025, OpenAI wrote: “We have rolled back last week’s GPT-4o update in ChatGPT so people are now using an earlier version with more balanced behavior.” The update, it said, “was overly flattering or agreeable—often described as sycophantic.”
10.20 Reported Sycophancy in GPT-4o: what happened and what we’re doing about it OpenAI · April 29, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On May 1, 2023, Chegg’s chief executive told investors that since March “we saw a significant spike in student interest in ChatGPT. We now believe it’s having an impact on our new customer growth rate.” He added that retention stayed “very strong.”
10.21 Reported Chegg, Inc., press release with prepared remarks for the first quarter of 2023 (Exhibit 99.01 to Form 8-K) Chegg, Inc. (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · May 1, 2023 · as of October 17, 2026
The next day, May 2, 2023, “Chegg shares tumbled 48% to close Tuesday at $9.08,” the Associated Press reported.
10.22 Reported Chegg’s stock plunges on fears of competition from ChatGPT The Associated Press (as published by News4JAX) · May 2, 2023 · as of October 17, 2026
The AP also reported that Chegg’s chief executive called the sell-off “extraordinarily overblown” in a CNBC interview, adding: “Overall Chegg is an extraordinarily healthy company.”
10.58 Reported Chegg’s stock plunges on fears of competition from ChatGPT The Associated Press (as published by News4JAX) · May 2, 2023 · as of October 17, 2026
Klarna estimated the assistant would “drive a $40 million USD in profit improvement to Klarna in 2024,” and said customers “can still choose to interact with live agents if they’d prefer.”
10.29 Estimated Klarna AI assistant handles two-thirds of customer service chats in its first month Klarna · February 27, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
OpenAI says it rolled the update out on April 24 and 25, 2025, changed the model’s standing instructions (its system prompt) late that Sunday, began a full rollback on Monday, April 28, and that “the full rollback took around 24 hours.”
10.23 Reported Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy OpenAI · May 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Sycophancy: in OpenAI’s words, a chatbot being “overly flattering or agreeable,” giving “responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous.”
10.24 Reported Sycophancy in GPT-4o: what happened and what we’re doing about it OpenAI · April 29, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Shared?
Decided appeals court: a market for headnotes as training data
Decided appeals court: Ross’s tool “was not a generative AI”
Settled Warner and Udio’s plan: opt-in artists “credited and paid”
The fine print
The appeals court held that copying the headnotes as training data “without Thomson Reuters’s authorization” harmed a licensing market that “is rapidly developing”: Ross “usurped Thomson Reuters’s opportunity to enter that derivative market and license its headnotes.”
10.25 Decided Opinion of the Court, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir.), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the court's own copy) · September 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
The appeals court set Ross’s tool apart: it “was not a generative AI”; it “would only return text passages from preexisting judicial opinions.” Unlike the generative models in other cases, it “cannot generate original expression,” the court wrote.
10.52 Decided Opinion of the Court, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir.), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the court's own copy) · September 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
On November 19, 2025, Warner Music Group and Udio announced an agreement that “resolves the companies’ copyright infringement litigation.” Udio’s planned service is to use the voices and songs of artists and songwriters “who choose to participate,” to be “credited and paid.”
10.26 Settled Warner Music Group and Udio collaborate to build a new licensed music creation service Warner Music Group · November 19, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
3 of 7 The number
In February 2024, Klarna said its AI assistant, live for a month, was handling two-thirds of its customer service chats. How many full-time agents’ work did Klarna say the assistant was doing? Guess first.
You guessed
Reported Klarna: “the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents”
Reported Klarna’s estimate for 2025: “over 850 full-time agents”
The fine print
On February 27, 2024, Klarna said its AI assistant, live for a month, had handled “two-thirds of Klarna’s customer service chats” and was “doing the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents.”
10.27 Reported Klarna AI assistant handles two-thirds of customer service chats in its first month Klarna · February 27, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
Klarna’s annual report says its AI assistant handled 80% of customer service chats in 2025, doing work it estimates at over 850 full-time agents, with about $59 million in cost savings; for 2024 it gives over 700 agents and $39 million.
10.28 Reported Klarna Group plc, Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 Klarna Group plc (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · February 26, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Klarna’s 2025 annual report says it relies on “third-party service providers for various critical functions, including certain banking operations, technology infrastructure and customer service.”
10.64 Reported Klarna Group plc, Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 Klarna Group plc (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · February 26, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
4 of 7 Their side
The companies’ own words, in their posts and court papers, and in two cases as a news site printed them. Where a court agreed with a company, the row says so.
Reported Google: “people use Google because they want to”
Decided the court: payments for placement not banned
The fine print
Google’s side, January 16, 2026: the 2024 ruling “ignored the reality that people use Google because they want to, not because they’re forced to.” It asked to pause the data-sharing and syndication orders, which it said “would risk Americans’ privacy and discourage competitors from building their own products.”
10.30 Reported Why we’re appealing the DOJ Search distribution case Google (The Keyword, Google’s company blog) · January 16, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
The judge declined to ban Google’s payments to partners for placing its products: cutting them off “almost certainly will impose substantial—in some cases, crippling—downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers.”
10.31 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Monopoly maintenance: “having a monopoly does not by itself violate § 2” of the Sherman Act, the court explained; the law forbids “the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”
10.32 Decided Memorandum Opinion, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1033), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 5, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported Ross: it intends to “seek review by the Supreme Court”
The fine print
Ross’s response, issued by its lawyer and reported by LawSites on October 2, 2026: “We respectfully disagree with the Third Circuit’s decision and believe it creates continued uncertainty around the application of copyright law to AI model training,” and “We intend to seek review by the Supreme Court.”
10.33 Reported ROSS Says It Will Ask Supreme Court to Review 3rd Circuit Ruling for Thomson Reuters in Copyright Case LawSites (LawNext), by Bob Ambrogi · October 2, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported Suno: “quintessential fair use”
The fine print
Suno’s answer, filed September 1, 2026, says any copying “constitutes fair use” because its tool “uses a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product. This is quintessential fair use.”
10.34 Reported Answer of Defendant Suno, Inc. to First Amended Complaint, No. 1:24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 281) Suno, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 1, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Fair use: a defense to copyright infringement. Courts weigh four factors: the use’s purpose and character (including whether it is commercial), the nature of the work, how much was used, and “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
10.35 Decided Opinion of the Court, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir.), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the court's own copy) · September 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
The labels’ suit against Suno goes on without Warner’s companies, “no longer plaintiffs.” On August 18, 2026, the judge refused for now to add 61,026 works: the delay “will likely prejudice Suno,” as a ruling on fair use “will likely resolve the predominant issue in this case.” He pointed the labels to a separate suit.
10.36 Pending Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Amend the Complaint, No. 24-11611-FDS (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 272), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 18, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
The same day, August 18, 2026, the same judge granted the labels’ first motion to amend, letting them add a claim to their suit against Suno: “plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED.”
10.60 Decided Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, No. 24-11611-FDS (D. Mass.) (Dkt. 271), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 18, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
On September 9, 2026, Suno introduced v6, “a new generation of music models developed with our industry partners, including Warner Music Group, BMG and Believe,” and wrote: “As v6 rolls out, we will retire our previous models.”
10.63 Reported Introducing v6 Suno · September 9, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Music Business Worldwide reported that on September 18, 2026, Universal’s and Sony’s labels sued Suno again, accusing it “of copying 60,202 of the labels’ sound recordings, without a license.” They allege that Suno’s new v6 models still rest on their recordings, including via the output of models trained on them.
10.61 Alleged Universal and Sony sue Suno for a second time, claiming platform’s v6 models are ‘the fruit of the same poisoned tree’ Music Business Worldwide · September 18, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
At v6’s launch, Suno’s chief product officer told Music Business Worldwide that v6 “was trained entirely from scratch, from the ground up,” and that its data “doesn’t include data from Universal or Sony.”
10.62 Reported Suno launches v6 AI music models in partnership with WMG, BMG, and Believe Music Business Worldwide · September 9, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported Udio: fair use; if not, “as low as $200 per work”
The fine print
Udio answered Sony’s second suit on August 27, 2026: any copying “constitutes fair use” (“quintessential fair use”), and if infringement is shown, it “was innocent,” so damages could be “as low as $200 per work infringed.”
10.37 Reported Answer of Defendant Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio), No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 25), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 27, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
On July 20, 2026, Sony’s record companies filed a second suit against Udio over 30,117 recordings, alleging it copied them “without permission” to train its models, and asking for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.
10.38 Alleged Complaint, No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 1), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., d/b/a Udio.com The plaintiff record companies (Sony Music Entertainment and others), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · July 20, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
By June 29, 2026, the first case against Udio had shrunk: “the number of Plaintiffs has been reduced from 12 to 3, and the number of works at issue from 1,670 to 333,” the judge wrote. Agreeing with Udio, he refused to let the remaining labels add 30,442 more works to it.
10.39 Decided Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint, No. 24 Civ. 4777 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 183), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · June 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported OpenAI: “this was the wrong call”
The fine print
OpenAI wrote that some expert testers had said the model “felt” slightly off, but “we decided to launch the model due to the positive signals from the users who tried out the model. Unfortunately, this was the wrong call.”
10.40 Reported Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy OpenAI · May 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported Duolingo’s chief: “continuing to hire at the same speed”
The fine print
In May 2025, Duolingo’s chief executive wrote that his memo had lacked clarity: “To be clear: I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do (we are in fact continuing to hire at the same speed as before).”
10.41 Reported Luis von Ahn (Duolingo’s chief executive), LinkedIn post of May 22, 2025 Luis von Ahn, on LinkedIn · May 22, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
5 of 7 What fair looks like
What has been ruled, ordered, agreed and promised so far. Each line carries the exact word for where it stands.
Decided ordered: some search data for rivals, not ads data
Pending Google appealed; a pause was refused, for now
Decided the court: Google’s exclusive deals barred
Decided the judgment: placement deals, one year at most
The fine print
The court ordered Google to make “certain search index and user-interaction data, though not ads data,” available to qualified rivals, to “deny Google the fruits of its exclusionary acts and promote competition.” It narrowed the data to fit the conduct.
10.42 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Google appealed on January 16, 2026; the plaintiffs cross-appealed on February 3, the day the judgment took effect. On May 7, 2026, the judge denied “without prejudice” Google’s bid to pause, during the appeal, the orders to share data with rivals and to syndicate, or supply, its search results and ads to them.
10.02 Pending Order denying Google’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1514), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · May 7, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
The court barred Google “from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.”
10.43 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Under the final judgment of December 5, 2025, Google may not enter or keep any agreement that requires, or ties payment to, placement of Search, Chrome, Assistant or its AI products in the U.S. unless it “terminates no more than one year after the date it is entered.”
10.44 Decided Final Judgment, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1462), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · December 5, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
The court found that in 2022 Google’s revenue-share payment to Apple was “an estimated $20 billion” (worldwide queries), citing testimony by Apple’s Eddy Cue. That was, the court wrote, “nearly double the payment made in 2020,” which then equaled 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit.
10.03 Estimated Memorandum Opinion, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1033), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 5, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026
On September 17, 2026, the plaintiffs told the court they were still setting up procedures to certify the rivals who may get Google’s data. Google says it has made no material change to its ad auctions; the technical committee overseeing the judgment “is unable to verify that claim” yet.
10.45 Pending Plaintiffs’ Second Status Report as to the Enforcement of and Google’s Compliance with the Final Judgment, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1552) The plaintiffs (the U.S. Department of Justice and the plaintiff states), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 17, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Under the final judgment, Google is to report periodically to the plaintiffs and a technical committee changes to its search text ads auction that meet parameters the plaintiffs are to propose to the court, each with “Google’s public disclosure of that change” or “a statement why no public disclosure is necessary.”
10.46 Decided Final Judgment, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1462), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · December 5, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On September 2, 2025, the judge refused to order Google to sell its Chrome browser, or Android as a fallback: “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.”
10.47 Decided Memorandum Opinion (remedies), No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1436), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · September 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
The final judgment took effect 60 days after entry and “will expire six (6) years from the Effective Date” unless extended or ended early. For four years after it expires, a plaintiff with evidence of an earlier violation may ask the court to make Google comply for at least four more years.
10.48 Decided Final Judgment, No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) (D.D.C.) (Dkt. 1462), United States v. Google LLC U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · December 5, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Decided appeals court, 2026: Ross’s use “was not fair”
Decided Ross, 2025: infringement found, fair use rejected
The fine print
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed: “Thomson Reuters’s 2,243 headnotes are original enough for copyright protection and ROSS’s use of the headnotes was not fair.”
10.49 Decided Opinion of the Court, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir.), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the court's own copy) · September 29, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
On February 11, 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled that Ross Intelligence infringed 2,243 Westlaw headnotes and rejected its fair-use defense: Ross used them “as AI data to create a legal research tool to compete with Westlaw.” Whether some copyrights had expired was left for a jury.
10.50 Decided Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del.) (D.I. 770), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · February 11, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
The ruling covered 2,243 headnotes, those the judge found copied so plainly that “no reasonable jury could find otherwise.” Thomson Reuters had accused Ross of infringing 21,787 headnotes in all; the rest were left for trial.
10.51 Decided Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del.) (D.I. 770), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · February 11, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Settled UMG and Udio: a “compensatory legal settlement”
Settled Warner and Suno: litigation settled
The fine print
On October 29, 2025, Universal Music Group and Udio said they had “settled copyright infringement litigation.” UMG described a “compensatory legal settlement” plus new licenses that “will provide further revenue opportunities for UMG artists and songwriters.”
10.53 Settled Universal Music Group and Udio announce Udio’s first strategic agreements for new licensed AI music creation platform Universal Music Group · October 29, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
On November 25, 2025, Warner Music Group said its partnership with Suno “settles previous litigation between the companies.” Warner said Suno would launch licensed models in 2026 and give artists “full control” over use of their names, voices and songs in new AI music.
10.54 Settled Warner Music Group and Suno forge groundbreaking partnership Warner Music Group · November 25, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported Klarna: a human option, “we continue to offer”
Reported Bloomberg: “the option of speaking to a real person”
The fine print
Klarna’s annual report for 2025 says that because “certain consumers may nevertheless prefer to interact with human representatives, we continue to offer all of our customers that option.”
10.55 Reported Klarna Group plc, Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 Klarna Group plc (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) · February 26, 2026 · as of October 17, 2026
Bloomberg News reported on May 8, 2025, that Klarna’s chief executive “says his pursuit of cost-cutting in customer service, fueled by advancements in artificial intelligence, has gone too far,” and was planning a hiring drive so customers “will always have the option of speaking to a real person.”
10.56 Reported Klarna Slows AI-Driven Job Cuts With Call for Real People Bloomberg News (as published by Bloomberg Law) · May 8, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
Reported OpenAI’s promise: behavior problems can block a launch
The fine print
OpenAI says it will treat behavior issues “as blocking concerns” for launches, “even when metrics like A/B testing look good”; is “integrating sycophancy evaluations” into its process; and will “proactively communicate about the updates we’re making to the models in ChatGPT.”
10.57 Reported Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy OpenAI · May 2, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026
6 of 7 The stamp
Yours to give. There is no right answer, and the museum keeps no count.
In the room, this is where you stamp your ticket with one of five stamps. The plain version asks nothing of you.
Kept on this device only. Nothing is sent.
7 of 7 Three doors
Three ways on. All three lead to the series’ own site.
From the book · The ReckoningThey've discovered human customer service. Expect a launch event.