The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday, claims that the AI company unlawfully crawls, scrapes, copies, and distributes CNN's content from CNN Digital Platforms and third-party platforms. It also accuses the AI tools of reproducing verbatim copies of its articles, including paywalled stories, in query responses to users. Perplexity's AI tools allegedly have incorrectly attributed hallucinated content to CNN, which the company says in the suit violates its trademark. CNN's lawsuit stands for the proposition that Perplexity, a company valued at tens of billions of dollars, should not be able to steal from entities that create the original content Perplexity exploits, a CNN spokesperson said in a statement to the outlet. The public rely on high quality news journalism reported by human beings to understand their world, which is frequently dangerous and expensive to produce.

The complaint, filed on Thursday, said that Perplexity unlawfully copied thousands of CNN stories, videos and images to power its products and distribute "identical or substantially similar" competing content. CNN is asking for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and a court order blocking Perplexity from violating its intellectual property rights. "CNN's lawsuit stands for the proposition that Perplexity, a company valued at tens of billions of dollars, should not be able to steal from entities that create the original content Perplexity exploits," the Warner Bros-owned news company said in a statement. Anthropic was the first AI company to settle one of these cases last year, agreeing to pay $1.5bn to resolve a class action lawsuit from a group of authors. Perplexity is also facing lawsuits from The New York Times, Reddit and Dow Jones, among others.

Single-pass uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for classification represent uncertainty by predicting a tractable distribution over the class probability vector. While existing approaches primarily focus on enhancing the expressiveness of this distribution, they often provide limited insight into how predictive uncertainty is structured and aggregated, resulting in weak interpretability. We introduce the courtroom analogy, which conceptualizes uncertainty-aware classification as a structured debate among class-specific advocates. Each advocate forms a probabilistic opinion, and a final verdict is reached by aggregating these opinions using input-dependent plausibility weights. In this framework, each advocate's opinion is modeled as a Dirichlet distribution whose concentration parameter is decomposed into shared evidence and class-specific advocacy. This yields a structured mixture of Dirichlet distributions with semantically interpretable parameters. To instantiate this formulation, we propose Mixture of Dirichlet EXperts (MoDEX), a single-pass neural architecture that predicts the courtroom parameters, enabling efficient and expressive UQ while explicitly modeling uncertainty aggregation. We demonstrate that MoDEX enjoys strong theoretical properties and achieves state-of-the-art UQ performance across diverse benchmarks, yielding interpretable uncertainty estimates with meaningful semantics.

It is not only OpenAI but the AI race itself that was vindicated in the California courtroom last night . Even though Elon Musk essentially lost on a technicality, there's a clear signal from the verdict that making lots of money from AI and competing fiercely with rivals is simply business. The industry sometimes tries to display a united front, especially when it comes to safety, research and inclusivity. But this case served as a powerful reminder that none of the AI giants are charities and don't have to be, even if they once said otherwise. Cracks in the façade of industry collaboration for the sake of humanity have been exposed before.

On Monday morning, a jury in Oakland, California, announced its verdict in one of the most-watched tech feuds between billionaire Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The nine-member jury handed a decisive victory to Altman, saying Musk had waited too long to bring his claims against the artificial intelligence company and its top executives. Musk, who cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, had filed a $150bn lawsuit against the organisation, Altman and its president, Greg Brockman, accusing them of turning it into a for-profit entity for personal enrichment. Instead, the case became focused on a procedural issue. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that the statute of limitations had expired before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, meaning jurors concluded he had waited too long to bring his claims under the applicable legal deadline.

The federal jury in Oakland, California, found Altman, OpenAI and its president, Greg Brockman, not liable for Elon Musk's claims that they unjustly enriched themselves and broke a founding contract made with Musk when founding the startup. The verdict, delivered after less than two hours of deliberation, is a stark rebuke of Musk and his lawyer's claims that Altman "stole a charity" through his leadership of OpenAI . It also provides the AI firm with a clear path ahead to pursue going public later this year at about a $1tn valuation . The jury's finding is a non-binding, advisory verdict that left Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers with ultimate power to issue her own ruling in the case. Gonzalez Rogers immediately said that she would agree with the jury's decision and dismissed Musk's claims.

The complaint says park visitors don't get sufficient notice they're being scanned. Disney is being sued over use of facial recognition technology at its amusement parks. The class action lawsuit alleges that the entertainment brand does not adequately inform guests that it scans people's faces at the entrances to Disneyland and California Adventure. The complaint is seeking at least $5 million on behalf of park visitors. Guests should be able to expressly opt in to this type of sensitive facial recognition technology with written consent -- the onus of privacy rights should not be on the victim, writes Blake Yagman, a lawyer for the proposed class of visitors, in the complaint.

Elon Musk just lost another lawsuit. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has not been winning in court lately. His loss on Monday in his lawsuit against OpenAI and its co-founder Sam Altman is the latest in a string of legal defeats or settlements. Late last year he agreed to settle with former Twitter executives and thousands of former employees of the social platform, which he has renamed X, after fighting for years to pay them nothing. Then in March, he lost a case brought against him by investors of Twitter, who claimed they were misled by public statements he made during the takeover.

A California jury has tossed out Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict, the case was thrown out because Musk had filed his lawsuit after a statute of limitations to bring such claims had expired. Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit contract by shifting the ChatGPT-maker to a for-profit company after Musk donated $38m (£28.5m). Musk had argued Altman deceived him by accepting his money and then reneging on OpenAI's original non-profit mission to develop artificial intelligence (AI) technology for the benefit of humanity. Jurors spent three weeks viewing internal correspondence and hearing testimony, and arrived at a verdict on Monday after deliberating for roughly two hours.

A United States jury has ruled against Elon Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, finding the artificial intelligence (AI) company not liable to the world's richest person for having allegedly strayed from its original mission to benefit humanity. In a unanimous verdict on Monday, the jury in Oakland, California US federal court said Musk had brought his case too late. Following the verdict, Musk's lawyer said he reserved the right to appeal, but the judge suggested he may have an uphill battle because whether the statute of limitations ran out before Musk sued was a factual issue. "There's a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury's finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot," US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI, the company that launched in 2015 and went on to create ChatGPT.