Free Law Project and Legal Tech Innovators File Amicus Brief in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS

Free Law Project has joined a group of legal technology companies to file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in the case Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

This case is about much more than one lawsuit between two companies. At stake is whether new legal research tools, especially those powered by artificial intelligence, will be able to compete fairly, innovate, and make the law more accessible to everyone.

Why the Case Matters

Thomson Reuters, the company behind Westlaw, sued ROSS Intelligence, a legal tech startup, claiming that ROSS unlawfully used Westlaw’s “headnotes” (short summaries of legal points) to train its AI research tool. The district court sided with Thomson Reuters, but that decision is now being appealed. See the full appellate history here.

The amicus brief that we joined argues three key points:

• Headnotes aren’t creative enough to be copyrighted. Headnotes are short, factual summaries of legal rules. Copyright law doesn’t allow ownership over facts and the brief argues these summaries shouldn’t be treated differently.
• Using headnotes to train AI is fair use. ROSS never showed Westlaw’s headnotes to its users. Instead, it used them behind the scenes to train its system to understand and organize the law. That kind of use is transformative and not competing with the original product. This has long been considered fair use under copyright law.
• Overboard copyright claims hurt the public. If copyright is stretched this far, it will block new companies, nonprofit organizations, and innovators from building better tools to access the law. That would make legal information more expensive and less available, especially to people who need it most.

Who Joined the Brief

Along with Free Law Project, the following organizations joined this amicus brief,

• Cicerai Corp.
• Dispute Resolution AI
• Juristai
• Paxton AI
• Trellis Research Inc

Together, we represent a mix of nonprofits and startups building new ways for people to find, understand, and use the law.

We could have never done it without the help of Phil Malone and August Gebhard-Koenigstein at the Juelsgard IP & Innovation Clinic at Stanford Law School.

What Happens Next?

The appeals court will decide whether the lower court was right to side with Thomson Reuters, or whether ROSS should get another chance to defend its use of headnotes as fair and lawful.

At Free Law Project, we believe the law belongs to everyone, not just to those who can afford expensive subscriptions. Limiting how legal information can be used threatens innovation and locks up knowledge that should be open and accessible.