As a result, GitHub and OpenAI have intentionally violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon those representations in choosing to upload Licensed Materials to GitHub.

Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered monetary, reputational, and other damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

Plaintiffs and the Class did not know about the Defendants’ use of the Licensed Materials in the matter at issue in this Complaint.

Defendants did not attempt to contact Plaintiffs to obtain authority to remove or alter CMI from the Licensed Materials.

Future AI products may represent a bold and innovative step forward. GitHub Copilot and OpenAI Codex, however, do not.

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here.

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here.

Plaintiffs’ fraud claim alleges merely that GitHub stated that it would not sell or distribute Plaintiffs’ code, then “failed to honor [these] representations”.

Plaintiffs claim that GitHub invaded their privacy at the same time that the overall thrust of the Complaint is a failure to publicly attribute their identity.

The DMCA was enacted to balance the rights of users with those of copyright owners in light of new technologies.

Plaintiffs duplicate their DMCA, tort, passing off, and privacy claims as purported violations by GitHub of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiffs purport to advance an unjust enrichment claim against GitHub (Count VI), but “there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.”

Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim fails at the outset because the Complaint does not identify the contract(s) or provision(s) that each Defendant breached.

No allegation is specific to either GitHub or Microsoft. Nothing elsewhere in the Complaint explains what any particular Defendant is supposed to have done.

The TOS informs users that “You own content you create, but you allow us certain rights to it.”

Plaintiffs purport to assert a claim under the Lanham Act for “reverse passing off.”