View source for Disney Enterprises v MiniMax

<!-- AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->
<div class="ailaw-case-layout" style="display:flex;flex-direction:row-reverse;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:1.5em;align-items:flex-start;">
<div class="ailaw-case-sidebar" style="flex:0 1 22em;max-width:100%;min-width:0;">

{| class="wikitable ailaw-case-info" style="width:100%;margin:0;"
|+ style="font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;padding:0.5em;" | Case Information
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case name
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Disney Enterprises v. MiniMax<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f">[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.1.0.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Court
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Docket
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Filed
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | September 16, 2025<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Judge(s)
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.; Charles F. Eick (magistrate judge)<ref name="case-record-f7bf4807cb498452">[https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/MiniMax-MTD-Disney-complaint-April-10-2026.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Plaintiffs
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. studio entities named in the complaint<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Defendants
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | MiniMax; Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co., Ltd.; Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.; Does 1–10<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case type
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Civil action with counterclaims<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Claims / issues
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Direct and secondary copyright infringement involving Hailuo outputs; Nanonoble’s contract and indemnity counterclaims<ref name="case-record-65a32b9fcd4cc42f" /><ref name="case-record-f8d63482ce34da36">[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.61.0.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Status
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | June 26, 2026: studios answered Nanonoble’s counterclaims; filing lists trial for July 12, 2027. Later developments have not been verified.<ref name="case-record-f8d63482ce34da36" />
|}

</div>
<div class="ailaw-case-article" style="flex:1 1 28em;min-width:0;overflow-wrap:anywhere;">

'''Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. MiniMax et al.''' (Case No. 2:25-cv-08768, C.D. Cal.) is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed on September 16, 2025, by Disney, Lucasfilm, Warner Bros., and DC Comics against Chinese AI companies MiniMax, Hailuo AI, Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology (SXJT), and Nanonoble, alleging that the defendants' AI video and image generation platform infringes on copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and DC properties.<ref name="docket">[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.1.0.pdf Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. MiniMax, No. 2:2025cv08768 (C.D. Cal.)]</ref><ref name="mckool">[https://www.mckoolsmith.com/newsroom-ailitigation McKool Smith AI Litigation Tracker]</ref>

== Parties ==

=== Plaintiffs ===
* Disney Enterprises, Inc.
* Lucasfilm Ltd.
* Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
* Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
* DC Comics Inc.

=== Defendants ===
* MiniMax (brand name)
* Hailuo AI
* Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology (SXJT)
* Nanonoble

== Claims ==

* '''Direct copyright infringement''' — generating AI outputs featuring copyrighted characters (Darth Vader, Spider-Man, Batman, etc.)
* '''Contributory infringement''' — enabling users to create infringing content
* '''Induced infringement''' — encouraging users to generate copyrighted characters<ref name="chatgptiseatingtheworld">[https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/04/13/in-minimax-suit-nanoble-moves-to-dismiss-disneys-copyright-claims-citing-lack-of-direct-infringement-and-no-contributory-infringement-under-supreme-courts-decision-in-cox/ ChatGPTIsEatingTheWorld: Nanonoble Moves to Dismiss Disney Copyright Claims]</ref>

== Key Motions ==

=== MiniMax/SXJT Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(2)) ===
Defendants argue the court lacks personal jurisdiction: MiniMax is a brand name, not a legal entity subject to jurisdiction. SXJT, a Chinese firm, lacks U.S.-directed activities; any contacts trace to Nanonoble, not SXJT.<ref name="mckool" /><ref name="chatgptiseatingtheworld" />

=== Nanonoble Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(6)) ===
Nanonoble raises four principal arguments:<ref name="mckool" /><ref name="chatgptiseatingtheworld" /><ref name="vital">[https://www.vitallaw.com/news/copyright-news-movie-studios-are-the-latest-to-face-challenge-based-on-cox-decision/ipm0158bc9e7e00454e11a1590635f64e5b09 Vital Law - Copyright News: Studios Face Challenge Based on Cox Decision]</ref>

# '''Lack of registered copyrights in individual characters''' — Disney's copyright registrations cover works containing the characters, not the characters themselves, which Nanonoble argues is insufficient under Ninth Circuit law
# '''Extraterritoriality''' — AI models were trained in China, beyond the U.S. Copyright Act's extraterritorial reach, citing ''Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe''
# '''Contributory infringement fails the Cox Communications standard''' — no tailored service or inducement designed to facilitate infringement
# '''Disney's own test generations do not constitute infringement''' — "A copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright," citing ''Richmond v. Weiner'' (9th Cir. 1965)

=== Plaintiffs' Opposition ===
Disney counters with evidence of "in the wild" infringements — examples of MiniMax-generated infringing content posted on Instagram, Reddit, and other platforms by actual users. Disney also argues MiniMax's refusal to filter copyrighted characters despite having filtering capabilities for other content (e.g., violence) demonstrates willful blindness. Disney generated 52 test outputs demonstrating the platform's capacity to reproduce copyrighted characters.<ref name="chatgptiseatingtheworld" /><ref name="ipwatchdog">[https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/09/22/disney-and-others-allege-chinese-ai-companys-copyright-infringement-is-willful-and-brazen/ IPWatchdog - Disney Alleges Chinese AI Company's Copyright Infringement Is Willful and Brazen]</ref>

== Procedural History ==

* '''September 16, 2025''': Complaint filed in C.D. Cal.
* '''April 13, 2026''': Defendants file motions to dismiss — MiniMax/SXJT move under Rule 12(b)(2) (personal jurisdiction), Nanonoble moves under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim)
* '''April 24, 2026''': Deadline for motions or answers
* '''April 29, 2026''': Opening briefs on discovery disputes due<ref name="mckool" />
* '''May 4, 2026''': Opposition briefs on discovery disputes due<ref name="mckool" />
* '''May 5, 2026''': Joint dispute chart on discovery issues due<ref name="mckool" />
* '''May 12, 2026''': In-person status conference (Magistrate Judge Wang)<ref name="mckool" />
* '''May 29, 2026''': Hearings on motions to dismiss — no later than this date<ref name="mckool" />

Discovery has substantially concluded, though some discovery disputes remain unresolved. Disney has opposed Midjourney's separate request for documents related to Disney's own generative AI development, arguing such materials are irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue.<ref name="mckool" />

As of April 26, 2026, the court has not ruled on the motions to dismiss. The case remains at the pleading stage.

== Novel Legal Issues ==

This case raises unprecedented questions about:
* Whether AI-generated character images constitute direct copyright infringement
* Whether training AI models on copyrighted works outside the U.S. falls within U.S. copyright law's extraterritorial scope
* Whether platform operators can be held secondarily liable for user-generated AI content under the ''Cox Communications'' standard
* Whether copyright owners can generate their own infringing outputs as evidence and then sue
* How U.S. courts handle personal jurisdiction over Chinese AI companies with U.S.-facing products but no domestic legal entity

== See Also ==

* [[News Disney-v-MiniMax-Motions-Dismiss-2026|April 26, 2026 — Disney v. MiniMax Defendants File Motions to Dismiss on Jurisdiction and Copyright Grounds]]
* [[Cases]] — List of AI-related litigation
* [[Businessing LLC v Runway AI Inc]] — Related DMCA AI video scraping case

== References ==

<references />

</div>
</div>
<!-- /AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->

[[Category:Copyright Litigation]]
[[Category:Deepfakes]]
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:International]]