OpenAI accuses plaintiffs' firm of buying its own evidence — Coral Wire
Legal · Sun, Sep 27 2026 · Coral Index 55/100

OpenAI accuses plaintiffs' firm of buying its own evidence

The disputed research, a market-dilution study co-authored by copyright scholar Jane Ginsburg, is now accused of being commissioned by the very lawyers who used it.

OpenAI accuses plaintiffs' firm of buying its own evidence
Coral’s read

Strip away the procedural noise and here's the plain version: OpenAI says Susman Godfrey paid for a study, hid that it paid for it, then slipped it into the case as if it were independent evidence — evidence aimed at exactly the "market dilution" gap Judge Chhabria flagged as the plaintiffs' weak spot. If true, that's not a paperwork slip, that's the kind of thing that can blow up a case's credibility, not just one exhibit. Authors watching the AI-copyright fights for signs of where the money and precedent might land should treat this as a real setback for the plaintiffs' side, not a technicality to skim past.

Why it matters to you: The dilution argument was the one path Chhabria left open for authors to win an AI-copyright case, and this filing accuses the plaintiffs' own lawyers of manufacturing the evidence for it.

This story ran in the Coral Wire edition of Sun, Sep 27 2026, when the Coral Index stood at 55/100 (Mixed signals).

Coverage — 1 source

Every outlet found reporting this story.

Also in this edition

Spot something wrong?

Every story here links its sources so you can check them. If we have got a fact, a figure or a date wrong, tell us and we will correct the page and say so on it.

Prefer email? info@coralwire.ai

Coral Wire selects stories by a Claude-graded relevance score and writes each headline and one-line summary with an Anthropic Claude model from the linked source. Story gathering is not AI: it is a fixed set of feeds and dockets. The linked original is always the authority.