Web Scraping Lawsuits Tracker (2026)

• Google LLC v. SerpApi, LLC: Targeted review 2026-10-16: actual ECF 42, 45, 49, 60 and 61 PDFs read. ECF 42 dismisses the no-copyrighted-content theory without leave and the copyrighted-component theory with leave; it does not establish general scraping permission. ECF 45 is the amended pleading, not findings. Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72059948/feed/) and ECF 62 pp.1-2 and 17-19 (conclusion signed by Chief Judge Gonzalez Rogers, 9 November 2026). The 30 November date is my count of 21 days from the order; the order itself states only the 21-day period. The full PACER record was not reviewed, and the original whole-row verification date remains because not every original field was re-checked.
• The New York Times Co. v. Brave Software, Inc.: I read the complaint's caption, ¶¶1-5 and Counts I-V (pp.62-70) and the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75055933/feed/) on 2026-11-12. The complaint names Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere as alleged Brave API customers, but Brave is the only defendant and no claim is pleaded against any customer. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo is designated for referred matters. A near-identical suit by three Tribune papers was filed the same day (1:26-cv-09554). Everything about Brave's conduct is the plaintiff's allegation.
• Daily News, LP et al. v. Brave Software, Inc.: I read the complaint's caption and ¶¶1-3, the Count I and Count II headings (pp.58-60, including the 'over 2 million articles' registration claim at ¶88) and the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75056336/feed/) on 2026-11-12. The PDF's outline lists Counts IV and V; I did not read Counts III-V in full. The feed gives no service date or answer deadline, and the contents of the Statement of Relatedness (ECF 9) are not shown, so no next event is listed. Brave is the only defendant.
• Brave Software, Inc. v. News Corporation (Dow Jones and NYP Holdings counterclaims): I read ECF 25 pp.1-3 and 33-39 from a filing copy hosted by the Copyright Alliance, and the public docket feed of the 2025 case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69732536/feed/), on 2026-11-12. I could not reach the 2026 docket (CourtListener search returned 403), so later filings, any ruling on the foreign defendants' motion and the schedule are unverified and no next event is listed. The counterclaims' account of Brave's conduct is an allegation.
• Reddit, Inc. v. SerpApi LLC et al.: Targeted review 2026-10-16: actual ECF 104 conclusion at printed p.62, ECF 161 and ECF 170 read. No decision on the merits is implied, and no ruling on Oxylabs' separate motion was verified. Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71720563/feed/), which ran to ECF 186, and the actual ECF 183 and ECF 186. ECF 183 prints its deadline as 'November 23, 2206'; I read it as 2026 because the same order's follow-on deadlines are in December 2026. Status-conference minute entries for 5, 6 and 9 November are index metadata, not rulings. Other original fields retain the older whole-row verification date.
• Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC: Primary removal notice and stamped state complaint confirm removal 2025-07-03 and filing 2025-06-04. The state docket and later demurrer/discovery orders were not read; no current merits, hearing schedule or final case-status claim is made. Federal order reread 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.: ECF 193 p2 expressly records Meta's waiver of appeal from the January 23 contract order; this replaces an inference from an appellate-docket search. Full ECF 181 pp35-37 also read. Public metadata records administrative termination 2024-02-26; later enforcement or other proceedings not certified. Primary documents reread 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd.: ECF 355, filed 2025-06-27, states the action was compromised and settled and stipulates to dismissal without costs or fees. ECF 357, July 1, accepts it and retains jurisdiction over records/sealing. Private settlement terms and later activity not verified. Actual ECF 83 pp7,26 and ECF 156 pp1,21 also read. Documents reread 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.: Targeted document check 2026-10-16: ECF 406 pp.2–4 imposes a $500,000 consent judgment and permanent injunction on hiQ; p.4 orders entry on 8 December 2022 despite the retained proposed label. The April 2022 appellate opinion affirmed a preliminary injunction, not universal permission to scrape. The original November 2022 summary-judgment field and other chronology retain their older verification date; no current docket certification.
• The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. and OpenAI: Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16; whole-row verifiedAt is unchanged. ECF485 pp2-3 supplies the March ruling. ECF1618 p3 (Sept24 endorsement; cross-filed MDL paper) sets oppositions Oct 23, amici Oct 30, replies Nov 20. ECF1634 pp1-2 concerns Bloomberg Industry Group's intervention and sets opposition Oct 16/reply Oct 30. Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/feed/), which ran to ECF 1844 (10 November), and the actual ECF 1838 (3 pages). Granting leave to file amicus briefs is not a ruling on summary judgment or fair use. I did not re-read ECF 1618, so the 20 November reply date is not repeated as a current deadline. March order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.485.0.pdf ; September schedule: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.1618.0.pdf
• Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence: Targeted source correction 2026-10-16: Third Circuit opinion caption says filed September 29; public unsealing/docket entry is September 30. Opinion pages 2 and 5 support the affirmance and non-generative limit. Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the cover of ROSS's petition (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca3.125346/gov.uscourts.ca3.125346.225.0.pdf), which carries no filing stamp; Law360 reported the petition on 4 November 2026 (https://www.law360.com/articles/2546462/westlaw-ai-fight-warrants-full-court-review-3rd-circ-told). I also read the cover of the date-stamped amicus brief (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca3.125346/gov.uscourts.ca3.125346.227.0.pdf). A pending petition means the panel decision is not final; no outcome is inferred. Other original row fields retain the older whole-row verification date.
• Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK): Targeted 2026-10-16 reading of the actual judgment, not only its index. The linked judgment supports the November 2025 holdings; it does not prove the later appeal-permission decision or a current Court of Appeal schedule. Those later fields remain an older, unverified report and require the actual permission order before launch.
• Getty Images v. Stability AI (US): Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71112094/feed/); its newest entries are the 29 October joint stay motion and case management statement (ECF 79, 80) and the 30 October ECF 81 entry. The ECF 81 PDF returned 404 on RECAP, so the stay terms come from the docket text only, and the Aug 18 schedule (ECF 74) may change when the stay ends. Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16; original whole-row verifiedAt retained. Actual ECF53 pp1-2 confirms the Aug 14 2025 California filing and Delaware voluntary-dismissal notice, without certifying the Delaware closing date. ECF74 pp1-2 sets Nov5 2026 2pm status conference and Aug 31 2027 dispositive hearing. Its page1 trial line says Jan 18 2028, but page3 also contains an unexplained Aug 14 2028 footer; no trial date is presented as currently certified. Later docket completeness is unverified. Ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.53.0.pdf
• Ryanair DAC v. Booking Holdings Inc.: Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16; whole-row verifiedAt unchanged. ECF516 pp16-34/45 supplies the loss analysis and disposition; ECF518 pp1-2 is the signed Jan 31 judgment (ECF517 is only a proposed judgment). Actual ECF520 is a Feb 13 agreement/order that neither side will seek taxable costs. ECF521-523, the Third Circuit dismissal stipulation/order and Oct2 closing record were not obtained. The former Aug26 dismissal and unstated-reason assertions are withheld rather than treated as newly verified. This row describes the district judgment, not a certified current appeal status. Opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_20-cv-01191/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_20-cv-01191-5.pdf
• Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.: Targeted 2026-10-16 document review: the amended opinion upheld CFAA/§502 liability only for continued access after express revocation, rejected CAN-SPAM liability, vacated the remedies and remanded. Mere terms-of-use violation or bypassing an IP block alone was insufficient. Later 2019 proceedings and original filing fields were not reverified; the whole-row date remains older.
• Sandvig v. Barr: Targeted actual-opinion review 2026-10-16: the court held these researchers' proposed consumer-site terms violations did not violate CFAA §1030(a)(2), declined the First Amendment question, denied the cross-motions as moot and dismissed. It is not blanket permission to bypass authentication or breach contracts. Any separate appeal/history fields retain their older verification date.
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd.: ECF 380 was signed September 30 and filed October 3, 2022; it restricts the bound defendants' Meta access/collection and requires code/data deletion. ECF 383 October 5 dismisses remaining unjust-enrichment, interference and unfair/fraudulent-UCL claims. The injunction records a confidential settlement and appeal waivers. No universal scraping prohibition, confidential payment amount or later enforcement status inferred. Documents reread 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• LinkedIn Corp. v. ProAPIs Inc.: Actual ECF 36 pp2-5 lists all three defendants, the claims, access/product restrictions and defendants' certifications of data/code destruction; those certifications were not independently tested. It resolves all claims/defenses, bars party appeals and retains enforcement jurisdiction. No confidential settlement terms or later compliance/current docket certification. Complaint ECF 1 also read 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• LinkedIn Corp. v. Nubela Pte. Ltd. (Proxycurl): The actual January 24, 2025 complaint ECF 1 pp1-2 confirms the four named defendants, six pleaded causes and alleged fake-account/password-wall conduct. These are allegations. ECF 28 terms, injunction scope, deletion duties and post-judgment status remain unverified; no fresh whole-row certification. Public primary retrieval attempted 2026-10-16; original row verification date retained.
• Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.: Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/feed/), which ran to ECF 231, and the actual ECF 231 (2 pages). I did not read the ECF 227 order itself; its 'granted in full' wording is from the docket text, and the sealed order's reasoning is not public. The feed showed no change to the 14 December conference, which comes from ECF 205 read 16 October. Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16; original whole-row verifiedAt retained. Actual ECF205 p9 sets the Dec 14 2026 10am pretrial conference; p3 sets fact discovery Dec 10/expert discovery Mar 16 2027. ECF216 p3 is signed Oct 6 (the public feed indexes it on Oct 7); sealed briefing/transcript contents were not inspected. No full current-docket certificate. Merits-motion order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270.65.0.pdf ; scheduling order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270.205.0.pdf
• The New York Times Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.: Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71997720/feed/), which ran to ECF 94 (10 November), and the endorsed letter at ECF 91 pp.1-2 and 4 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190.91.0.pdf). That file carries the related Tribune case's header (1:25-cv-10094, Doc. 75) and says it replaces Times Dkt. 83. Plaintiffs' account of Perplexity's discovery position is a party letter, not a finding. Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16; whole-row verifiedAt unchanged. Actual March 20 ECF44 caption and pp60-67 establish the three plaintiffs and five pleaded counts. ECF57 pp1-2 identifies the dismissal motion; actual ECF68 confirms the Jun 9 reply. ECF74 Aug 7 is a party clarification of preserved clickthrough/log/RAG snapshots, not a court finding or sanctions order. ECF76 was unavailable, so its Aug 31 protective-order content and later disposition are held; lack of a readable later ruling does not prove none exists. Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190.68.0.pdf ; Aug 7 letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190/gov.uscourts.nysd.654190.74.0.pdf
• Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.: Targeted 2026-11-12 check: I read the public docket feed (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71874820/feed/), which ran to ECF 135; the ECF 134 and 135 entries are docket metadata only, as I did not read those briefs. No ruling on the motion appeared. Targeted primary-paper review 2026-10-16 before the US filing day ended; original whole-row verifiedAt retained. Actual ECF129 pp1-2 is filed/dates Oct 13 although the feed lists Oct 14. ECF120 Sept 14 continued the earlier motion hearing to Nov 20; ECF129 now notices that date against the amended complaint. ECF122 pp1/32-37 pleads three claims, not findings. ECF126 Sept 30 only requests a courtesy copy. The old Sept 2027 trial date is withheld absent its actual current scheduling order. Official appeal pp14-17/21: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/04/26-1444.pdf ; amended complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.459191/gov.uscourts.cand.459191.122.0.pdf
• In re Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation: Actual Seventh Circuit ECF 69 pp2,5-7,18-26 read 2026-10-16. The vacated arrangement offered monetary relief equivalent to a 23% stake, with specified triggers/alternatives; it did not establish an immediate 23% share transfer or cash payout. Later mandate, rehearing, district remand activity or replacement settlement not checked. Original row verification date retained; original exact district/member-case filing days not freshly certified.
• Information Commissioner v. Clearview AI Inc: Actual judgment read via the National Archives (Decision directions and paras305/320/364-367). The judgment is authorised for issue Oct 6 2025 and records Jul 17 2026 typographical corrections; GovUK metadata also gives decision date Oct 6; the ICO announcement page is dated Oct 8. Its Dec 19 update reports that permission was granted but does not itself supply the signed permission order or certify its exact grant date. The lastEventDate is that update date only. No inference about present appeal progress follows from search silence. Official metadata: https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/the-information-commissioners-office-v-clearview-ai-inc-privacy-international-intervening-2025-ukut-319-aac ; permission report: https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2025/10/uk-upper-tribunal-hands-down-judgment-on-clearview-ai-inc/
• Kneschke v. LAION e.V.: Actual LG judgment paras54/68/100ff and OLG 36-page judgment tenor/pp11-35 read on 2026-10-16; original whole-row verifiedAt retained. BGH I ZR 281/25 appears in the official May 20 hearing notice as reproduced publicly; counsel reports the Sep 3 hearing. Neither counsel discussion nor court-press descriptions are a BGH judgment/referral. Some later reports name Dec 17 2026 for pronouncement, but no actual court timetable/protocol was obtained; the former claim that no date was announced is withdrawn. LG full text: https://kandidatentreff.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2495651.pdf ; BGH notice mirror: https://news.2be.legal/2026/05/20/ldi-de-ger-bgh-pm-de_2026-2026085/ ; counsel account: https://www.recht-im-internet.de/presseanfragen/pressemeldung-laion

Download CSV (CC BY 4.0). Scroll sideways for more columns.