On August 2, 2024, David Millette (the Plaintiff) filed, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of YouTube users and video creators, a class action complaint against OpenAI, Inc. and related entities (collectively, OpenAI) in Millette v OpenAI, Inc. et al, 3:24-cv-04710. The Plaintiff’s complaint pertains to the alleged non-consensual transcription of class members’ YouTube videos by OpenAI to train their artificial intelligence (AI) software products.
Large language models (LLMs) currently power certain OpenAI products such as ChatGPT, and they are trained using large amounts of information from various sources. Based on the training dataset(s), LLMs can progressively adjust their output to more closely resemble the information provided and emit convincing simulations of natural written language, videos, and/or images.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff takes the position that OpenAI has been covertly transcribing YouTube videos to create training datasets for its products and “these video transcriptions are one of the largest corpora of natural language data available” for training OpenAI’s LLMs. The Plaintiff further state that he and class members retain ownership rights in their uploaded content per YouTube’s Terms of Service and did not consent to the use of their videos as training material for OpenAI’s products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that by transcribing and using such content without consent, OpenAI profits from the Plaintiff’s and class members’ data. This includes using training datasets to increase the sophistication of OpenAI’s products, which make these products “more valuable to prospective and current users, who purchase subscriptions to access [OpenAI’s] AI products”.
As a result, the Plaintiff argues that OpenAI is being unjustly enriched at the Plaintiff’s and class members’ expense, and has engaged in business practices that are in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Among other things, the Plaintiff seeks class certification; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; injunctive relief; and an order of restitution and other equitable monetary relief.
Summary By: Steffi Tran
Disclaimer: This Newsletter is intended to provide readers with general information on legal developments in the areas of e-commerce, information technology and intellectual property. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information contained in this newsletter without seeking legal advice.
E-TIPS is a registered trade-mark of Deeth Williams Wall LLP.