In a significant move to address the tension between copyright and generative artificial intelligence (AI), the UK’s Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), and Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS) have announced plans to launch a collective licensing framework for AI training. The opt-in license would allow AI developers to use text-based published works—such as books, journals, and magazines—for training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) while ensuring that creators are compensated. The license is expected to roll out in Q3 2025, following further consultation with publishers.Continue Reading UK’s Collective Licensing Initiative Aims to Harmonize AI and Copyright Law

Congress has reintroduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act— a bipartisan bill designed to establish a federal framework to protect individuals’ right of publicity. As previously reported, the NO FAKES Act was introduced in 2023 to create a private right of action addressing the rise of unauthorized deepfakes and digital replicas—especially those misusing voice and likeness without consent. While the original bill failed to gain traction in a crowded legislative calendar, growing concerns over generative AI misuse and newfound support from key tech and entertainment stakeholders have revitalized the bill’s momentum.Continue Reading Congress Reintroduces the NO FAKES Act with Broader Industry Support

On March 21, 2025, ahead of a consultation and call for evidence on the EU’s Digital Fairness Act, the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network[1] highlighted the pressing need for improved consumer protection in the European Union, particularly regarding virtual currencies in video games. This move comes in response to growing concerns about the impact of gaming practices on consumers, including vulnerable groups such as children. The CPC Network has defined a series of key principles and recommendations aimed at ensuring a fairer and more transparent gaming environment. These recommendations are not binding and without prejudice to applicable European consumer protection laws[2] but they will likely guide and inform the enforcement of consumer protection agencies on national level across the EU.Continue Reading EU: New European Consumer Protection Guidelines for Virtual Currencies in Video Games

We recently wrote about the flurry of legal issues with the social casino sweepstakes model. Now, the New York State Senate Racing, Gaming, and Wagering Committee passed S5935, a bill that, if fully approved and enacted, would prohibit in NY “online” sweepstakes games that uses a dual-currency system of payment allowing the player to exchange the currency for any prize, award, cash or cash equivalents, or any chance to win any price, award, cash or cash equivalents, and simulates casino-style gaming. The bill also covers other entities including financial institutions, payment processors, geolocation providers, gaming content supplier, platform providers, or media affiliates who support the operation, conduct, or promotion of sweepstakes games within the state of New York.Continue Reading New York and New Jersey Move to Prohibit Social Casino Sweepstakes Model

Social casino games remain incredibly popular and profitable. This success has drawn attacks from plaintiffs’ class action lawyers in the form of gambling loss recovery lawsuits and other consumer-based actions. Some have been successful, mostly in Washington state, netting plaintiffs hundreds of millions of dollars. This has created an incentive for more lawsuits. Some social casino game companies have evolved their business model to include a dual currency, sweepstakes model. This model has also drawn a substantial number of lawsuits and a call to action by the American Gaming Association (AGA). Last August, the AGA published a position paper imploring gaming regulators and state Attorneys General to investigate companies or platforms that offer games under the “sweepstakes” model to determine whether or not these operators are in compliance with their respective laws and regulations, and to take appropriate action if not. Some regulators have responded by initiating actions against both the game companies and payment processors. Numerous private lawsuits have also been filed against game companies, and some have even included payment processors and app stores. In response, some social casino game operators have ceased operations in certain states. As many legal misconceptions exist with this model, game companies, payment processors and app store operators need to understand the evolving legal risks associated with this social casino sweepstakes model, and the steps they can take to mitigate such risks. This post addresses those issues. Continue Reading Social Casino Sweepstakes Model is Under Fire – What Game Companies, Payment Processors and App Stores Need to Know

The legal battles surrounding generative AI and copyright continue to escalate with prominent players in the Indian music industry now seeking to join an existing lawsuit against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. On February 13, 2025, industry giants such as Saregama, T-Series, and the Indian Music Industry (IMI) presented their concerns in a New Delhi court, arguing that OpenAI’s methods for training its AI models involve extracting protected song lyrics, music compositions, and recordings without proper licensing or compensation. This development follows a broader trend of copyright holders challenging generative AI companies, as evidenced by similar claims in the U.S. and Europe.Continue Reading Indian Music Industry Enters the Global Copyright Debate Over AI

In the latest string of gambling cases involving social casino-style apps out of Washington state, a federal jury has awarded a class of players nearly $25 million for injuries arising from the use of two of High 5 Game’s mobile applications: High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas.Continue Reading Operating Social Casino-Style Applications Continues to be Costly in Washington State

The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report on AI and copyrightability reaffirms the longstanding principle that copyright protection is reserved for works of human authorship. Outputs created entirely by generative artificial intelligence (AI), with no human creative input, are not eligible for copyright protection. The Office offers a framework for assessing human authorship for works involving AI, outlining three scenarios: (1) using AI as an assistive tool rather than a replacement for human creativity, (2) incorporating human-created elements into AI-generated output, and (3) creatively arranging or modifying AI-generated elements.Continue Reading The Copyright Office’s Latest Guidance on AI and Copyrightability

Introduced in response to certain digital media sellers (e.g., game publishers) revoking consumer access to purchases with little to no recourse, AB 2426 forces sellers of “digital goods,” such as movies, apps, games, books and music to clarify what a consumer is actually receiving in connection with their “purchase.” Often companies refer to the “purchase” or “sale” of digital goods, yet the associated terms of service make clear that the buyer only receives a revocable license to the such goods. In some cases, if a buyer violates the terms of service, the license is revoked and the user is denied further access to the digital goods. In other cases, a buyer may be denied access to digital goods it has “purchased” if the digital media platform shuts down.Continue Reading New California Law Targets Sellers of Digital Goods

On August 28, the CFPB issued a Consumer Advisory warning that it believes video game companies are targeting children for monetary gain. With 45.7 million U.S. children engaged in video gameplay, the agency is concerned about the financial risks that games and virtual worlds pose, especially to young consumers. This Advisory highlights a growing focus on the game industry’s practices, which allegedly mimic traditional banking systems but lack corresponding consumer protections. Continue Reading Regulators Ramp up Scrutiny of Games’ Business Models