The law belongs to everyone. We told a court that being the biggest provider of summaries and research tools shouldn’t give Thomson Reuters a monopoly on access to the facts in judges’ decisions. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/protecting-access-law-and-beneficial-uses-ai
Follow
@eff IANAL, so a question - what gets cited in court and in briefs, Thomson Reuters headnotes or a judge's published opinion (or both)? Does Thomson Reuters somehow prevent access by Ross to published opinions by judges? Naively, perhaps, but it seems to me Thomson Reuters expended effort and created value that Ross is simply appropriating. If West's contribution was minimal, why did Ross need to use it rather than work directly from the opinions?
