Judge Dismisses DMCA Claims by Coders Against Microsoft, OpenAI, and GitHub


The partial dismissal shows that the complainants were unable to provide evidence that GitHub replicates code written by humans.

Stay in the know on crypto by frequently visiting Crypto News Today

The judge presiding over a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft regarding the purported unauthorized utilization of intellectual property (IP) to develop the “GitHub Copilot” AI coding tool has partially rejected the allegations against the defendants.

CryptoCaster Quick Check:

This decision represents a victory for Big Tech and the generative AI sector, which is currently grappling with several interconnected legal challenges.

Doe(s) vs. OpenAI, GitHub, and Microsoft

The plaintiffs in the legal case claimed that OpenAI had extracted data from GitHub and utilized code snippets created by humans to teach GitHub Copilot without obtaining consent, providing compensation, or giving credit. The lawsuit alleged that Copilot replicated code written by humans verbatim, leading the complainants to seek $1 billion in damages.


The lawsuit involves five unidentified complainants who are believed to be part of the group suing, all identified as “John Doe” in the court papers that have been made available to the public thus far.

Two different reports from Bloomberg Law and Law360 indicate that California Northern District Judge Jon S. Tigar has thrown out the class claims related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The reason for this, as stated by Bloomberg Law, is that the claimants were unable to demonstrate that their code had been reproduced in an identical manner.

Judge Tigar filed the dismissal on June 24, according to related documents. During that time, public access to the filing was limited, potentially because previously redacted names were revealed. The filing was eventually unsealed on Friday, July 5.

Artificial Intelligence Impact

The legal case was initially submitted in 2022. During that period, industry experts and commentators believed that the lawsuit would have significant consequences for the technology sector. James Vincent from The Verge, in particular, mentioned that the lawsuit could greatly influence the field of artificial intelligence.

Vincent also referenced two developers linked to the lawsuit who expressed concerns about the situation. They compared the current state of AI to the Napster era and warned that allowing companies like Microsoft to utilize code without proper credit could harm the open-source community.


By July 2024, it seems that most of those allegations have been rejected. The implications for Microsoft, OpenAI, and GitHub are uncertain, but it could result in a loosening of the companies’ activities in the field of AI-generated coding.

Microsoft and OpenAI are confronted with various legal actions, including one from The New York Times that bears resemblance to this particular case. Similar to the individuals involved in the coding lawsuit, The New York Times claims that OpenAI utilized its intellectual property to train its models, and that these models occasionally generate outputs containing identical information.

It remains to be seen whether the latest decision in favor of OpenAI, Microsoft, and GitHub will have any impact on that case or others of a similar nature.CRYPTOCASTER® - DECENTRALIZED FREEDOM!


e hope you enjoyed this article. Before you move on, we invite you to consider supporting CryptoCaster’s journalism.

Billionaire owners like Elon Musk, Larry Fink (BlackRock), and Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan Chase) often have a strong influence on the hidden agendas surrounding the paradigm shift brought about by cryptocurrency and emerging Web3 technologies. CryptoCaster stands apart. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to please. Our journalism is dedicated to serving the public interest in crypto development and institutional disruptions, not profit motives.

We avoid the pitfall of much U.S. and global media, which often resorts to false equivalence in the name of neutrality and retail consumer protection. While fairness and transparency guide everything we do, we recognize that there is a right and wrong stance in the fight against fiat global banking interests and the monetary reconstruction driven by the emerging crypto ecology.

When we report on issues like the FTX, Binance, and Ripple crises, we’re not afraid to name names and uncover the truth. As a crypto sentinel, we offer a fresh, outsider perspective on global monetary disruption—something often missing from the insular American and European media bubble.

CryptoCaster’s paywall-free journalism is accessible worldwide thanks to our unique reader-supported model. This is made possible by readers like you. Your support keeps us independent, free from outside influence, and accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for news and information.

We are grateful for the ongoing monetary support from our readers. If you haven’t yet considered supporting CryptoCaster, please consider contributing just once from $1 or more in Bitcoin (satoshi) or Ether, or even better, support us monthly with a bit more. Scroll further down this page to find CryptoCaster’s wallet addresses.

Thank you.

Kristin Steinbeck
Editor, CryptoCaster

Please Read Essential Disclaimer Information Here.
© 2024 Crypto Caster provides information. does not provide investment advice. Do your research before taking a market position on the purchase of cryptocurrency and other asset classes. Past performance of any asset is not indicative of future results. All rights reserved.

Contribute to CryptoCaster℠ Via Metamask or favorite wallet. Send Coin/Token to Addresses Provided Below.
Thank you!
BTC – bc1qgdnd752esyl4jv6nhz3ypuzwa6wav9wuzaeg9g
ETH – 0x7D8D76E60bFF59c5295Aa1b39D651f6735D6413D
MATIC – 0x7D8D76E60bFF59c5295Aa1b39D651f6735D6413D
LITECOIN – ltc1qxsgp5fykl0007hnwgl93zr9vngwd2jxwlddvqt


You may also like