Gracenote Media Services v OpenAI

Case Information

Case name	Gracenote Media Services v. OpenAI
Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Docket	1:26-cv-01947-SHS; related MDL 1:25-md-03143
Filed	March 10, 2026
Judge(s)	Sidney H. Stein
Plaintiffs	Gracenote Media Services LLC
Defendants	OpenAI Foundation; OpenAI Group PBC; OpenAI GP LLC; OpenAI LLC; OpenAI OpCo LLC; OpenAI Global LLC; OpenAI Holdings LLC
Case type	Civil action in coordinated multidistrict litigation
Claims / issues	Direct and secondary copyright infringement and unjust enrichment
Status	April 21, 2026: Gracenote action stayed pending summary-judgment decisions in the related MDL. Later developments have not been verified.

Gracenote Media Services, LLC v. OpenAI (Case No. 1:26-cv-01947, S.D.N.Y.) is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Nielsen subsidiary Gracenote against OpenAI, alleging unauthorized copying and use of Gracenote's proprietary media metadata database to train and power AI products including ChatGPT.

April 21, 2026: Gracenote action stayed pending summary-judgment decisions in the related MDL. Later developments have not been verified.

Parties

Plaintiff

Gracenote Media Services, LLC, a Nielsen subsidiary that maintains a copyrighted entertainment metadata database (the Programs Database) covering music, video, and sports content, including relational architecture and descriptive metadata used by media distributors worldwide

Defendants

OpenAI Foundation (f/k/a OpenAI, Inc.), OpenAI Group PBC, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global, LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, and OpenAI Holdings, LLC (collectively "OpenAI")

Plaintiff Counsel

Susman Godfrey LLP

Court

Court

United States District Court, Southern District of New York

Docket Number

1:26-cv-01947

Filing Date

March 10, 2026

Claims

Gracenote alleges that OpenAI willfully copied its copyrighted metadata and relational framework without permission or license to train large language models for products like ChatGPT, ChatGPT Enterprise, and developer APIs. Specific allegations include:

• Unauthorized reproduction of Gracenote's copyrighted Programs Database and relational architecture
• OpenAI models reproduce exact copies of Gracenote data verbatim (e.g., exact "Game of Thrones" episode summaries and metadata)
• AI outputs enable competitors to build substitutive metadata products, threatening Gracenote's core business
• Willful infringement seeking actual damages, statutory damages, and injunctive relief
• Jury trial demanded

Current Status

The case is newly filed and pending. It has been affirmed as related to the Multi-District Litigation In re OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation. No rulings, motions, or settlements have been reported as of April 2026. The complaint has been noted as the 90th U.S. copyright lawsuit against AI companies.

Significance

This case raises the novel issue of whether database metadata and relational architecture — not raw creative content but structured descriptive data — qualifies for copyright protection against AI training. A ruling in Gracenote's favor could significantly expand the scope of copyrighted material that AI companies must license, beyond traditional books, music, and images.

Related Cases

• Bartz v Anthropic PBC — Authors' $1.5B settlement over pirated book training
• Kadrey v Meta Platforms Inc — Authors allege Meta trained LLaMA on pirated books
• Carreyrou v Anthropic PBC — Opt-out authors sue multiple AI companies

References