LexLint

Know the law your code answers to.

The case for caring

Is the legal risk real?

Law cited as of 14 September 2026

This page is LexLint's own reading of public sources, not legal advice.

The question is usually asked as though the answer were somewhere in the future, and that is the part which is wrong. Regulators are using powers they already have, companies are suing each other over training data and access, and courts are ordering changes to products rather than payments out of them. Here is the evidence, with the cases named and the dates on them. Every source sits beside the sentence that relies on it, or under the paragraph on a narrow screen. A law links to LexLint's own note on it, with the text it was read from; a case links to the court's record or to a published report of the ruling.

§1 · The laws are already in force

The start dates have passed

Four commencement dates, all of them in the past:

All four start dates have passed A timeline from July 2025 to October 2026 with a mark at each of the four dates the list below names. Left to right: 2 Aug 2025, AI Act general-purpose AI duties; 2 Aug 2026, AI Act transparency duties and California AI Transparency Act; 11 Sep 2026, Cyber Resilience Act 24-hour clock. The axis ends in Oct 2026. Commencement dates All four start dates have passed Jul 2025 Jan 2026 Jul 2026 2 Aug 2025 AI Act general-purpose AI duties 11 Sep 2026 Cyber Resilience Act 24-hour clock 2 Aug 2026 AI Act transparency duties California AI Transparency Act
Two of the four fell on one day. The first has been in force for more than a year; the newest started a 24-hour reporting clock for any product with digital elements already on the EU market.

  1. The EU AI Act's obligations for providers of GPAI models took effect: technical documentation, a copyright policy that respects opt-outs, and a published summary of training content. The Commission's power to fine a general-purpose model provider for breaching them arrived a year later, on 2 August 2026. LexLint's note on Article 53. Text: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on EUR-Lex. Chapter V applies from 2 August 2025 under Article 113(b); the Commission's fines are Article 101.

  2. The AI Act's transparency obligations became enforceable: a system that interacts with a person has to disclose that it is a machine, and synthetic output has to be marked. LexLint's note on Article 50. The Commission's guidelines on the transparency obligations (20 July 2026) say how the article is read.

  3. California's AI Transparency Act became operative the same day, with its own separate answer to the same question. LexLint's note on SB 942. Text: Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code sections 22757 to 22757.6 on leginfo, as amended by AB 853.

  4. The Cyber Resilience Act's reporting duty started, fifteen months ahead of the rest of that regulation. A manufacturer of any product with digital elements on the EU market, including one placed there years ago, now has 24 hours from learning of an actively exploited vulnerability or a severe incident to file an early warning, and 72 hours to file the notification. LexLint's note on Article 14. Text: Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 on EUR-Lex. Article 69(3) keeps products already on the market inside this duty; the fine is up to €15 million or 2.5 per cent of worldwide turnover (Article 64(2)).

Of the instruments LexLint holds a commencement date for, 1,896 were already in force on the morning this page was built, across 247 jurisdictions. The most recent commencement on file is Cyber Resilience Act, Manufacturer Reporting Obligations (European Union), on 11 September 2026. LexLint's note on Cyber Resilience Act, Manufacturer Reporting Obligations. Everything LexLint tracks, by jurisdiction, is at lexlint.io/law.

Laws change after you ship

This is the half nobody plans for. A law you complied with can be enjoined while you are still shipping against it, or struck down after you have finished. These are tracked instruments that were in force and a court stopped:

A court is not the only thing that moves a law, and the other direction is the one worth watching. Germany repealed its Leistungsschutzrecht and Spain repealed its AEDE levy, and both repeals happened because Article 15 of the Digital Single Market Directive had replaced them with a single press-publishers' right across all twenty-seven member states. Two national obligations became one continental one. A repeal is not automatically relief, and the same corpus that records the repeal records what replaced it. LexLint's notes on the German press publishers' right, the Spanish levy and the directive that replaced both.

So a legal read done once is a photograph, not a position.

§2 · Government enforcement

Regulators are enforcing these laws

AI Act Article 50, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

In force from 2 August 2026. Enforced by the national market surveillance authorities each member state designates under Article 70; the fine is Article 99(4)(g), and the small-enterprise rule is Article 99(6), both on EUR-Lex.

Since 2 August 2026 the transparency obligations bind providers and deployers of chatbots, synthetic-media generators, emotion-recognition systems and deepfake tools, whether or not the system underneath is high risk. Non-compliance carries up to €15 million or 3 per cent of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. If you are a small or medium enterprise, a start-up included, the rule inverts and the ceiling is whichever of the two is lower, which for most companies reading this page is the turnover figure rather than the headline one.

A four-month transition runs to 2 December 2026, and it is narrower than it sounds: it covers only the machine-readable marking duty, and only for generative systems that were already on the market on 2 August 2026. Everything else in the article has applied since that day. The transition was added by the Digital Omnibus on AI. The Commission's voluntary Code of Practice on marking and labelling (10 June 2026) is the practical route to the marking duty, and its guidelines (20 July 2026) cover the rest of the article.

What it changes for your code The rule: a system that talks to a person discloses that it is a machine, and synthetic media it produces carries a machine-readable mark. Both are decisions about architecture, and both are far cheaper before the interface exists than after.

California's AI Transparency Act became operative on the same day and answers the same question differently: a covered provider has to publish a free detection tool, offer a visible disclosure option, and embed latent provenance in generated image, video and audio. Text output is out of scope. The penalty is $5,000 per violation, and each day in violation counts as a separate one. There is no administrative fine and no private right of action: the Attorney General, a city attorney or a county counsel brings the civil action. Section 22757.4 sets the penalty and the per-day count; section 22757.1(d) defines a covered provider. Both on leginfo.

Whether it reaches you turns on one definition. A covered provider is a person that produces a generative AI system with over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users which is publicly accessible within California. The two halves are separate conditions, and because they sit on the definition rather than on any one duty, they gate all three obligations at once. It bites at scale rather than on day one.

Enforcement, from the corpus

257 developments on file
Everything we hold in enforcement →

§3 · Company lawsuits

Companies are suing each other over data and access

Google v. SerpApi

N.D. Cal. 4:25-cv-10826-YGR. Filed 19 December 2025; dismissed with leave to amend 20 July 2026; amended 10 August 2026; second motion to dismiss filed 25 August 2026 and pending as of the date at the top of this page. Search Engine Land on the dismissal; SerpApi's own account of its second motion.

The claims are not copyright in the content. They are DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention claims about getting around a bot detection system. On 20 July 2026 the court dismissed the claims over results with no copyrighted content in them outright, and the rest with leave to amend, holding that the bot barrier had not been shown to control access to a copyrighted work with the owner's authority.

Google amended on 10 August 2026 on a narrower theory, and the interesting part is what the narrower theory is built from: its licensing agreements, Reddit's among them. Google pleads that its licensors authorised it, and in some cases asked it, to apply technical measures against third parties extracting the licensed content. SerpApi's second motion to dismiss says Google has filed none of those agreements with the court.

What it changes for your code The authority behind a barrier you route around may be an agreement between two other parties. A party that cannot read the agreement is not bound by it, and it is still what turns a technical measure into a protected one.

Amazon v. Perplexity

Ninth Circuit No. 26-1444, from N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC. Argued 11 June 2026; decided 4 August 2026 (opinion); rehearing en banc petitioned 18 August and denied, as reported on 10 September 2026. The district court record is on CourtListener.

Amazon sued in November 2025 and moved for a preliminary injunction at the same time. In March 2026 the district court heard the motion, gave a tentative ruling for Amazon that it described as a close call, and then granted the injunction against Perplexity's shopping assistant. On 4 August 2026 the Ninth Circuit vacated it and remanded, holding Amazon unlikely to succeed on the CFAA “access” prong: where an assistant carries out specific acts at a user's direction, it is the user who accesses the system, with the assistant's help.

The panel reached that reading by way of the circuit's standing caution against constructions that would transform the statute “from an anti-hacking statute into an expansive misappropriation statute”, which is a quotation from an earlier en banc court rather than a new holding. United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Perplexity won. Read the calendar rather than the holding. The district court refused it a stay pending appeal and gave it a seven-day administrative stay to go and ask the Ninth Circuit for one; it filed its notice of appeal the next day, moved for an injunction pending appeal, and got a motions panel to stay the order and expedite the case. Amazon then petitioned for rehearing by the full court, and in September the court said no, recording that not one judge had asked for a vote.

Ten months in, still no merits case A list of dated rows, one per step in the case, with the steps Perplexity had to take marked. Reading down: Nov 2025, Amazon sues and moves for a preliminary injunction; Mar 2026, The district court grants the injunction, refuses a stay pending appeal, and allows seven days to ask the Ninth Circuit for one; The next day, Perplexity files its notice of appeal and moves for an injunction pending appeal (marked); Mar 2026, A motions panel stays the order and expedites the appeal; Mar to Jun 2026, Perplexity briefs the expedited appeal; argued 11 June (marked); 4 Aug 2026, The Ninth Circuit vacates the injunction and remands; 18 Aug 2026, Amazon petitions for rehearing by the full court; Aug to Sep 2026, Perplexity answers the petition (marked); Sep 2026, Rehearing denied; not one judge asked for a vote; Ten months in, The merits case has not begun (marked). Marked: what winning cost Perplexity, in time. Amazon v. Perplexity Ten months in, still no merits case Nov 2025 Amazon sues and moves for a preliminary injunction Mar 2026 The district court grants the injunction, refuses a stay pending appeal, and allows seven days to ask the Ninth Circuit for one The next day Perplexity files its notice of appeal and moves for an injunction pending appeal Mar 2026 A motions panel stays the order and expedites the appeal Mar to Jun 2026 Perplexity briefs the expedited appeal; argued 11 June 4 Aug 2026 The Ninth Circuit vacates the injunction and remands 18 Aug 2026 Amazon petitions for rehearing by the full court Aug to Sep 2026 Perplexity answers the petition Sep 2026 Rehearing denied; not one judge asked for a vote Ten months in The merits case has not begun Marked: what winning cost Perplexity, in time.
Perplexity won every round after the first. The marked rows are what winning took: an emergency motion inside a week, an expedited appeal, a petition to answer, and a merits case still to come.

That is the cost, and it is not a number: an emergency appellate motion inside a week, an expedited appeal through the following five months, a rehearing petition to answer, and a merits case that has not yet begun ten months after the complaint was filed. Being right did not recover any of it, and none of it was scheduled by Perplexity.

Your customers have duties too

Article 50 puts obligations on deployers, not only on providers. An enterprise buyer running your system carries duties that depend entirely on what your system does and on what you can tell them about it. That is why the AI section of a security questionnaire exists, and it is why an unanswerable question there costs a quarter rather than a fine. Article 50(3) puts the emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation disclosure on the deployer; Article 50(4) does the same for deepfakes and AI-written text on matters of public interest.

Litigation, from the corpus

386 developments on file
Everything we hold in litigation →

§4 · What a remedy looks like

The remedy is a product change, not a payment

GEMA v. Suno

Landgericht München I (Munich Regional Court I), 42 O 763/25, 31 July 2026. A first-instance judgment. An appeal lies to the Munich Higher Regional Court; Suno has said it is considering one, and none had been reported when this page was checked. Freshfields' reading of the judgment, 7 September 2026.

The court found that the works were retained in the model's parameters, and that full retention in model parameters falls outside the text-and-data-mining exception in section 44b of the German Copyright Act, which reaches only reproductions genuinely necessary for analysis. On outputs it held Suno responsible rather than its users, reasoning that the model's architecture and memorised training data, not the prompt, substantively determined what came out.

Two more findings reach past music. The court treated the route Suno took around YouTube's rolling cipher as circumvention of a technical protection measure, which is the shape of the claims in §3 wearing a copyright statute. And it took jurisdiction over the training itself: the injunction ordered Suno to stop copying the works “within the territory of the United States of America for the purpose of training an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate music”.

What it changes for your code Where the training ran is not where the question gets decided. A TDM exception that covers a pipeline in one country may not cover the same pipeline in the next, and what fell outside it here was not the crawling but what the model kept.

What happened next is the part worth sitting with. Within a week Suno announced audio watermarking and fingerprinting and integrated a third-party copyright detection system; it capped how much subscribers can download; and twelve days after the judgment it signed a global licence with BMG that settles its prior use of that catalogue. Watermarking, as reported on 7 August 2026; the BMG licence, as reported on 13 August 2026.

Three fixes, then four new suits A list of dated rows covering the six weeks after the Munich judgment, with what Suno built or signed marked. Reading down: 31 Jul 2026, Munich Regional Court I finds against Suno on training and on outputs; Within a week, Suno ships audio watermarking and fingerprinting, adds third-party copyright detection (marked); Within a week, Suno caps how much subscribers can download (marked); 12 Aug 2026, Suno signs a global licence with BMG, twelve days after the judgment (marked); 24 Aug 2026, Round Hill sues Suno and Anthropic over scraped recordings; 28 Aug 2026, Universal and Sony amend their case to add stream-ripping claims; 1 Sep 2026, Two musicians file a class action on identity claims; 3 Sep 2026, Canada's performing-rights society sues in Canada. Marked: what Suno built or signed. The rest are new claims. Suno, from 31 July 2026 Three fixes, then four new suits 31 Jul 2026 Munich Regional Court I finds against Suno on training and on outputs Within a week Suno ships audio watermarking and fingerprinting, adds third-party copyright detection Within a week Suno caps how much subscribers can download 12 Aug 2026 Suno signs a global licence with BMG, twelve days after the judgment 24 Aug 2026 Round Hill sues Suno and Anthropic over scraped recordings 28 Aug 2026 Universal and Sony amend their case to add stream-ripping claims 1 Sep 2026 Two musicians file a class action on identity claims 3 Sep 2026 Canada's performing-rights society sues in Canada Marked: what Suno built or signed. The rest are new claims.
Every marked row is engineering or a contract, shipped against a deadline the court set. The four rows after them are the new claims the judgment drew, in the six weeks that followed.

None of that is a payment. It is a provenance pipeline, a third-party integration, a product limitation and a commercial agreement, shipped against a deadline set by somebody else. That is what a remedy looks like in this area, and it is the reason “we will deal with it if it happens” prices the risk wrongly. What you are exposed to is not a number in next year's budget. It is a quarter of engineering you did not choose, on a schedule you do not control.

The judgment did not end the litigation either; it multiplied it. In the six weeks that followed, Round Hill sued Suno and Anthropic over scraped recordings, Universal and Sony amended their case to add stream-ripping claims, two musicians filed a class action built on identity claims rather than copyright, and SOCAN sued in Canada. Round Hill, 24 August; Universal and Sony, 28 August; the class action, 1 September; the Canadian suit, 3 September 2026.

§5 · Why early is cheaper

Each of these is cheaper to build in than to bolt on

Read back over the cases and notice what the obligations actually ask for. Does the app say it is a machine. Does its output carry a mark. Do you know where the training data came from. Does the crawler respect the barrier in front of it, and do you know what that barrier is protecting and for whom. Who gets the call within 24 hours when a vulnerability in your product is being exploited. While the code is a sketch each of those is an afternoon. After launch each one is a migration, a retrain, or a renegotiation, and Suno's twelve days are what the compressed version looks like.

At design time

  • A disclosure is a string and a place to put it
  • Provenance marking is a library and a build step
  • Training-data records are a column you were going to add anyway
  • An incident report is a template and a name on a rota
  • A jurisdiction you decide not to serve costs you nothing yet

After launch

  • A disclosure is an interface change across every surface
  • Provenance marking is a re-encode of everything already shipped
  • Training-data records are an archaeology project, if they exist
  • An incident report is a 24-hour clock that started before you knew
  • A jurisdiction you leave is revenue you already booked

LexLint exists to make the left-hand column happen. Your coding agent declares what the app does and where it operates, and the lint comes back with the obligations its research associates with what was declared, each with a citation and an as-of date. It is a lint, not a lawyer: it catches the basics early, while they are still cheap, and it says outright when it has no current data for a jurisdiction rather than passing you.

And it is built to be run again, because the answer has a date on it: a memo is correct on the day it is written, and the lint runs again on Tuesday.

https://mcp.lexlint.io/mcp Connect your agent → See a full run →

Law cited as of 14 September 2026. Court decisions are summarised from published reports of the rulings; the instrument notes linked in the margin carry their own citations and as-of dates. Everything LexLint tracks is at lexlint.io/law, and the coverage this page draws on is at lexlint.io/news. LexLint is not legal advice and is not a substitute for counsel in the jurisdictions you operate in.