Key holding or allegation
The court held that a machine-readable NoAI restriction can qualify as CMI under §1202(c)(6), but dismissed both pleaded claims with leave to amend because intentional removal was not adequately alleged and internal enterprise movement did not constitute statutory distribution.
Why it matters
Important bridge between machine-readable AI-use restrictions and existing CMI doctrine, while sharply limiting what the ruling establishes about opt-out enforceability.
Facts
A 3D artist alleges Meta obtained assets from repositories including Sketchfab, Thingiverse and Polycam through a large indexed dataset and lost or removed creator, licence and machine-readable NoAI information during training preparation.
Issues before the court
Whether creator/licence/NoAI information qualifies as CMI, whether Meta intentionally removed it, and whether internal movement of CMI-stripped representations constitutes distribution.
What the court did not decide
The amended pleading has not been adjudicated. The August order did not create an independent copyright opt-out right, find intentional CMI removal, or decide the legality of Meta training itself.
Procedural timeline
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Motion-to-dismiss order: Court held that a machine-readable NoAI restriction can qualify as CMI under §1202(c)(6), but dismissed both claims with leave to amend for failure adequately to plead intentional removal and statutory distribution.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Amended complaint filed: Beaulier filed an amended complaint attempting to cure the §1202 pleading deficiencies identified in the 26 August dismissal order, again alleging removal of creator/licence/NoAI information in connection with Meta’s AI training pipeline.