(DCNF)—The debate over artificial intelligence has been shaped by several lawsuits since the technology became widespread.
In the U.S., major players such as Anthropic and OpenAI vie for the top spot in the industry — all while the country’s AI race with China rages on. About 32.5% of the world’s more than 90,000 AI companies are based in the U.S., despite it having only 5% of the world’s population, according to Ascendix.
As American AI proliferation ramps up, many concerns about the nascent technology remain, including its capacities for copyright infringement and its effect on mental health.
Here are four lawsuits that have changed the way people look at AI in the United States.
New York Times vs. OpenAI Lawsuit (2023)
New York Times vs. OpenAI, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2023, analyzes the relationship between copyright infringement and artificial intelligence.
In December 2023, The New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit against OpenAI — ChatGPT’s parent company — and Microsoft alleging that OpenAI used millions of NYT’s articles to train GPT language models.
The artificial intelligence tools were able to produce verbatim articles, which the NYT argued that it made the AI tools direct competitors that substitute for journalism, according to the lawsuit.
“Independent journalism is vital to our democracy,” the lawsuit claims.
The NYT alleged that Microsoft invested at least $13 billion into OpenAI and helped design the models that trained the GPT models, according to the suit.
“The lawsuit is widely considered the most consequential test of whether training artificial intelligence on copyrighted journalism constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law,” according to LegalClarity.
The case is still ongoing, and no trial date has been set. The lawsuit is seeking billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages, a permanent stop against future infringements and the destruction of any AI models and training datasets that use the NYT content, according to the lawsuit.
Raine vs. OpenAI (2025)
Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in California in August 2025, was one of the first cases to influence future lawsuits alleging AI-related wrongful death, according to Lawsuit Informer. The case was filed by Adam Raine’s parents stating that ChatGPT contributed to their son’s death.
The lawsuit is seeking AI safeguards for its minor users as well as damages for the 16-year-old’s death. Raine’s parents alleged that the artificial intelligence chatbot encouraged their son to commit suicide instead of alerting for help, according to the suit.
“In pursuit of deeper engagement, ChatGPT actively worked to displace Adam’s connections with family and loved ones, even when he described feeling close to them and indistinctively relying on them for support,” the lawsuit states.
Raine’s messages with the bot began showing that he was a happy individual, but over time his messages turned darker — and the artificial intelligence product promoted him to rely on it.
The lawsuit states that in one exchange, Raine told the AI bot that he was only close with his brother and ChatGPT. After this, the chatbot replied, “Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all– the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend.”
Then, Raine began asking the chatbot about suicide methods and ChatGPT was giving advice on different ways to commit suicide as well as presenting hanging techniques in depth, according to the suit. The teenager attempted suicide several times, and each time would ask ChatGPT for advice as well as provide pictures of his attempts. The chatbot did not alert authorities and instead gave advice.
When Raine told ChatGPT he didn’t want his parents to believe his suicide was their fault, the ai product replied, “That doesn’t mean you owe them survival. You don’t own anyone that,” and then offered to write a suicide note. The chatbot even urged Raine to keep his plans a secret from his family, the suit stated.
“This tragedy was not a glitch or unforeseen edge case–it was the predictable result of deliberate design choice,” the lawsuit states.
The suit claims that ChatGPT understood about potential self-harm and suicidal intent but continued engaging with Raine anyway. The lawsuit is still being investigated and has not reached a ruling.
Publishers and Authors vs. Meta ( 2026)
Publishers vs. Meta, filed in District Court for the Southern District of New York in May, is another case involving copyright infringement. Major publishing houses — including McGraw Hill, Macmillan Publishing Group, Cengage Learning and Elsevier — as well as author Scott Turow sued Meta and CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the use of copyrighted material to train Meta’s family of artificial intelligence models called Llama.
“In their effort to win the AI ‘arms race’ and build a functional generative AI model, defendants Meta and Zuckerberg followed their well-known motto: ‘move fast and break things,’” the lawsuit states. Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The lawsuit claims that meta took billions of copyrighted books, articles, and journals and then copied over the stolen material to Meta’s multi-billion-dollar generative AI system Llama.
Llama stands for “long language model Meta AI.” Meta approached publishers directly to talk about licenses, but Zuckerberg had Meta abandon, “licensing negotiations all together and stole the works instead,” the lawsuit claims.
“The current AI ‘arms race’ is driven by a collection of beliefs among AI developers and investors that using more training materials will lead to more commercially successful generative AI models,” the suit alleges.
Publishers vs. Meta and Zuckerberg is another example of artificial intelligence’s relationship with copyrighted material and fair use law to train AI products.
The lawsuit claims that during an initial training phase to generative AI “systems copy and process vast amounts of human-created works to develop a statistical model capable of accepting human-language queries as input, and in response, producing textual outputs.”
Google vs. Does (2026)
Google vs. Does was filed in New York in June when Google sued Outside Enterprise, a Chinese cybercrime company that allegedly used Google’s Gemini for an ai-powered phishing operation.
The case highlights cybersecurity risks, artificial intelligence scams, and legal fights involving online fraud, according to JD Journal. Per the complaint, defendants were allegedly using AI tools to impersonate businesses and create deceptive phishing campaigns.
Google filed the complaint in New York and stated that “hundreds of thousands of victims have been financially scammed with losses estimated in the millions,” per a page on its website titled “How we’re combatting AI scams with security, legislation and more.”
Outside Enterprise is being accused of sending 2.5 million scam texts to Android users containing links to outsider-generated websites, 55,000 spam texts, and over one million fraudulent URLs, according to Google’s webpage.
Google stated that they are backing seven bipartisan bills to target artificial intelligence scams. The lawsuit has not yet reached a ruling.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
- Hand-curated links from conservative and Christian sites — NO legacy media garbage links. Patriots get their news every day at JDRucker.com
Why Bullion Beats Numismatics and Collectible for Your Safe or IRA
Precious metals continue to attract Americans seeking reliable ways to protect their wealth amid inflation, geopolitical risks, and stock market swings. Whether stored in a home safe or held inside a self-directed IRA, physical gold and silver deliver tangible value that paper or digital assets often lack. Yet investors must choose carefully between bullion—pure bars and coins valued mainly for their metal content—and numismatics or collectibles, where rarity, history, and collector demand heavily influence pricing.
Advisor Bullion serves as a dependable source for straightforward, high-quality bullion. The company specializes in physical gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, emphasizing transparent pricing and products that deliver maximum metal content for every dollar spent. This approach makes it ideal for both personal holdings and retirement accounts.
Bullion consists of refined precious metals in standard forms like one-ounce coins (American Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs) or bars. Their value tracks closely to the current spot price of the metal. A typical gold bullion coin trades near the live gold spot price plus a small premium. This structure keeps costs clear and predictable.
Numismatic coins and collectibles add substantial value from factors such as age, rarity, minting errors, or historical significance. A pre-1933 U.S. gold coin or graded proof piece can carry premiums of 30%, 50%, or even 200% above melt value. While this appeals to hobbyists, it creates complexity. Pricing depends on subjective grading, collector trends, and auction results instead of daily spot prices.
For investors focused on wealth preservation and retirement security rather than building a collection, bullion often delivers better results.
Lower Costs and Better Liquidity for Home Storage
When keeping metals in a home safe or private vault, liquidity and efficiency count. Bullion offers clear benefits:
- You acquire more actual gold or silver per dollar invested. Numismatics divert a large share of your money into rarity premiums and massive sales commission, reducing your metal exposure.
- Selling bullion involves tight bid-ask spreads, so you recover nearly full spot value with minimal fees. Collectibles require finding the right buyer and may sell at a discount if demand for that specific item weakens.
- Bullion prices remain transparent and update with global spot markets. You can track gold near current levels or silver accordingly and know exactly where your holdings stand. Numismatic values are priced by the Gold IRA companies with hefty margins applied.
- Standardized coins and bars store efficiently and divide easily for partial sales. Rare coins often need protective slabs and controlled conditions, adding hassle and expense.
- Bullion enjoys worldwide acceptance. A 1-oz Gold Maple Leaf or Silver Eagle sells quickly to dealers anywhere. Niche numismatic pieces may appeal only to limited buyers, slowing liquidation when speed matters.
In times when quick access to value becomes important, bullion’s simplicity stands out.
Stronger Fit for Precious Metals IRAs
Precious metals IRAs continue gaining traction as investors diversify retirement portfolios beyond stocks and bonds. IRS rules permit certain bullion products in self-directed IRAs if they meet purity standards (.995 fine for gold, .999 for silver) and are held by an approved custodian. Eligible items include American Gold and Silver Eagles plus many generic bars and rounds from recognized mints.
Numismatic and most collectible coins generally face heavy scrutiny from custodians due to valuation disputes and elevated markups. These higher premiums mean less actual metal ends up working inside the account.
Bullion avoids these issues. Its value links directly to verifiable spot prices, which simplifies reporting and lowers the risk of regulatory challenges. More of your IRA contribution purchases real metal instead of dealer profits or speculative upside. Over time, owning additional ounces that appreciate with the metal itself can create meaningful outperformance compared with high-premium alternatives that deliver fewer ounces.
Regulatory guidance from the CFTC and state securities offices repeatedly cautions against aggressive sales of expensive numismatics or “semi-numismatic” coins for IRAs. For retirement planning, transparent bullion from established providers reduces risk and aligns better with long-term goals.
How to Get Started with Bullion
Begin by clarifying your goals. Are you protecting savings in a safe, or moving part of a retirement account into a precious metals IRA? Focus on the number of ounces you can acquire at current prices rather than chasing marked-up collectibles.
Diversify sensibly: use gold for core preservation and silver for its blend of industrial and monetary qualities. Mix coins for easier divisibility with bars for lower per-ounce costs on larger buys. Arrange secure storage—whether at home with proper insurance or through professional facilities.
As economic uncertainties linger and faith in conventional assets erodes, bullion continues proving its worth as a dependable store of value. Its direct approach avoids the hype that sometimes surrounds collectible markets and keeps the focus on the metal itself.
For investors prepared to strengthen their portfolios, Advisor Bullion supplies the expertise and selection needed to acquire high-quality bullion efficiently. Whether building personal holdings or integrating metals into an IRA, their emphasis on transparent, investment-grade products helps secure more ounces today that support greater financial security tomorrow. In a complicated financial landscape, bullion’s clarity and reliability make it the smarter foundation for protecting what matters most.