Businessing LLC v Runway AI Inc
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc. is the action filed by Businessing LLC, doing business as Ali Spagnola, on February 27, 2026 in the Southern District of New York (No. 1:26-cv-01655). It was consolidated with Ace Cam, Inc. v. Runway AI, Inc. under lead No. 1:26-cv-01362-LAK before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.[4][5]
The April 27 consolidated complaint and June 9 consolidation order preceded the October 30 dismissal ruling described below.[6][2]
Original allegations
The complaint identifies Businessing as the entity operating Ali Spagnola’s YouTube channel. It alleges that Runway bypassed YouTube’s technological access restrictions to obtain videos for generative-AI training, including at least 1,200 videos from that channel. Its pleaded cause of action is anti-circumvention under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), with statutory damages and injunctive relief requested. These are allegations in a proposed class action, not findings of infringement or an order certifying a class.[4]
Consolidated proceedings
The March 27 order consolidated Businessing and Ace Cam for all purposes, including trial and appeal, and appointed interim co-lead class counsel.[5] The lead docket records a consolidated complaint filed April 27, Runway’s motion to dismiss on May 27, opposition on June 26, and reply on July 13.[7]
On June 9, the court also consolidated the Gardner action. The endorsed request specified that the existing Ace Cam consolidated complaint would remain operative and that consolidation alone would not require another amended complaint or change existing deadlines.[8]
The public lead docket consulted for this update includes supplemental-authority submissions on August 4 and August 11. Those entries do not themselves establish a merits ruling.[7]
October 30, 2026 dismissal ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Runway’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, he held that the creators sufficiently alleged protected access controls and circumvention under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The court rejected the argument that free public viewing on YouTube necessarily defeats an access-control claim, and explained that a technological measure can control both access and use.[3]
The court also held that creators need not install YouTube’s controls themselves: the complaint plausibly alleged that uploading their works authorized YouTube to deploy those protections. The decision allows the anti-circumvention claims to proceed. It does not determine that Runway actually circumvented the controls, certify a class or resolve fair use.[3]
See Also
- November 1 news: October 30 dismissal ruling in the consolidated Ace Cam proceedings
- Businessing complaint coverage
- DMCA cases
- Cases
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 S.D.N.Y., Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01362-LAK, ECF 61, memorandum opinion, signed and filed October 30, 2026, pp. 1–15.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Businessing LLC d/b/a Ali Spagnola v. Runway AI, complaint, February 27, 2026, caption, paragraphs 19 and 101–110
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 S.D.N.Y., Businessing v. Runway, public docket text of March 27, 2026 consolidation order, ECF 20
- ↑ Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 S.D.N.Y., Ace Cam v. Runway, lead docket entries 33–51 reproduced by Justia, consulted September 7, 2026
- ↑ S.D.N.Y., Ace Cam v. Runway, June 9, 2026 endorsed consolidation order, ECF 40