Disney, Universal, DreamWorks, and Warner Bros. allege in California federal court that Midjourney infringes their copyrights by generating their characters on demand. The case is in discovery, and Midjourney’s motions for review of the discovery limits and for partial judgment on the pleadings are pending. Initial expert disclosures are due on October 14, 2026, and the court has continued a hearing on a pending motion to October 26, 2026.
Latest development Oct 5, 2026
On October 5, 2026, the court approved a joint stipulation under which Midjourney will produce the video datasets used to train its models to the Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. plaintiffs. The stipulation addresses part of the parties’ discovery dispute over AI training data. A hearing on a pending motion is set for October 26, 2026.
Why it matters
The case tests whether a generative AI service is liable for its outputs, such as on-demand images of Darth Vader and Superman, not only for training on copyrighted works. The answer affects studios, AI developers, and how characters are licensed for generative AI.
Background
Disney Enterprises, Inc., Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, and DreamWorks Animation sued Midjourney, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 11, 2025. The studios allege that Midjourney trained its service on their works. They also allege that it generates high-quality images of protected characters on demand and with no protective guardrails, from Darth Vader and Yoda to Avengers and Toy Story figures. The complaint calls Midjourney “the quintessential copyright free-rider.” The studios seek statutory damages and an injunction conditioning the service on copyright protections.
Midjourney answered on August 6, 2025, denying liability and resting its defense on transformative fair use. On September 4, 2025, Warner Bros. filed a parallel suit over Superman, Batman, Scooby-Doo, and other characters, seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work. In November 2025, the court consolidated that suit into the Disney action, entered a scheduling order, and referred the parties to private mediation. The parties later selected retired Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal as mediator.
On June 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin mostly denied Midjourney’s motion to compel discovery into the studios’ own internal use and development of AI. The magistrate judge found that discovery irrelevant to the fair-use defense and treated the studios’ test prompts as protected work product. On June 29, 2026, Midjourney asked the presiding district judge, Judge John A. Kronstadt, to overturn those limits, arguing that the studios’ own AI-training practices would show industry custom. Judge Kronstadt heard that motion on August 17, 2026, and took it under submission. On August 31, 2026, Magistrate Judge Richlin found the earlier motions to compel moot and set briefing on the remaining training-data dispute.
On July 22, 2026, Midjourney moved for partial judgment on the pleadings on the contributory infringement claims, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cox v. Sony decision limiting secondary copyright liability. The studios opposed on August 12, 2026, and Midjourney replied on August 25. On September 23, 2026, the court approved in part a joint stipulation continuing the hearing on a pending motion from September 28 to October 26, 2026. On October 5, 2026, the court approved a further stipulation under which Midjourney will produce its video training datasets to the studios. Initial expert disclosures are due on October 14, 2026, and dispositive motions are to follow.
Timeline 16 events
-
OrderParties stipulate Midjourney will produce video training data
The court approved a joint stipulation under which Midjourney will transfer its video datasets used to train its models to the Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. plaintiffs.
By stipulation, Midjourney will share video training data with Disney plaintiffsDisney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., 2:25-cv-05275 — Docket
-
OrderCourt continues hearing on pending motion to October 26
The court approved in part a joint stipulation continuing a scheduled hearing on a pending motion in the case from September 28, 2026, to October 26, 2026, at 8:30 a.m.
Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., 2:25-cv-05275Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Universal v. Midjourney, Inc.
-
OrderMagistrate Judge Richlin sets briefing on remaining training-data discovery dispute
Judge Richlin found the earlier motions to compel moot. The order set the studios’ motion for September 10, an informal discovery conference for September 14, and Midjourney’s opposition for September 24, 2026.
-
FilingMidjourney replies in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings
-
HearingJudge Kronstadt hears Midjourney’s motion for review of discovery limits
The court took the motion under submission.
-
FilingStudios oppose Midjourney’s bid to narrow copyright claims
The studios argued that Midjourney misreads the Cox Communications ruling. They said the decision does not foreclose claims of intentionally promoting infringement.
-
FilingMidjourney moves for partial judgment on the pleadings, citing Cox v. Sony
Midjourney asked the court to trim the contributory infringement claims of Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. It argued that they conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cox Communications decision limiting secondary copyright liability for internet service providers.
-
OrderMidjourney seeks district-judge review of the discovery limits
Midjourney argued that the studios’ own AI-training practices support its fair-use and unclean-hands defenses. The court set a hearing for August 17, 2026.
-
OrderMagistrate judge curbs Midjourney’s discovery into studios’ AI use
Judge Richlin mostly denied Midjourney’s motion to compel discovery on the studios’ internal AI development and shielded their test prompts as work product.
-
OrderParties select retired Judge Suzanne H. Segal as mediator
Disney and Midjourney jointly selected the Hon. Suzanne H. Segal, a retired Central District of California magistrate judge, to serve as the private neutral for their court-ordered mediation.
Disney, Midjourney select Hon. Suzanne H. Segal as private neutral for mediation
-
OrderCourt refers parties to private mediation and sets status conference
The court granted the parties’ request for a settlement conference with a private neutral. It set a post-mediation status conference for August 31, 2026, and an August 21, 2026, deadline to report any settlement.
-
OrderCourt enters scheduling order governing discovery and expert disclosures
Following consolidation, the court set deadlines for discovery, expert disclosures, and motion practice. It set initial expert disclosures for October 14, 2026, with expert discovery extending into November 2026.
-
OrderCourt consolidates Warner Bros. suit into the Disney action
The court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the Warner Bros. Entertainment suit with the Disney, Universal, and DreamWorks case. It designated the Disney action as the lead case and terminated the separate Warner Bros. docket.
-
FilingWarner Bros. files parallel suit over Superman and Batman
The 87-page complaint over Superman, Batman, Scooby-Doo, and other characters sought up to $150,000 per infringed work and emphasized secondary-liability theories.
-
OrderMidjourney answers, leading with fair use
Midjourney denied liability and likened model training to human learning from exposure to images.
-
FilingDisney, Universal and DreamWorks sue Midjourney
The studios alleged training on their works and on-demand generation of protected characters. They sought statutory damages and an injunction conditioning the service on copyright protections.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the court rule on Midjourney’s July 22, 2026, motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on the studios’ contributory infringement claims by June 30, 2027?
- Court denies Midjourney’s Cox motion29%
- Court trims some contributory claims25%
- Still pending on June 30, 202724%
- Court dismisses all contributory claims16%
- Settlement or withdrawal moots motion6%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely result is that the court denies Midjourney’s Cox-based motion, at 29%, by June 30, 2027. A partial trim is close behind at 25%. The studios’ theory of intentional promotion of infringement, which they say Cox does not foreclose, gives them a credible path to keep at least some contributory claims.
How it resolves. Resolved from the C.D. Cal. docket in No. 2:25-cv-05275. “Denies” means the court denies the motion in full. “Trims some” means the court grants it in part, or grants it with leave to amend any contributory claim, leaving some contributory theory pending or repleadable. “Dismisses all” means every contributory infringement claim is dismissed without leave to amend. “Settlement or withdrawal” means the motion is withdrawn, mooted by settlement, or terminated without a merits ruling. “Still pending” means no ruling or mooting event has occurred by June 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal Rule 12(c) motions to narrow secondary-liability copyright claims after a new Supreme Court ruling: Federal motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings are granted at least in part roughly 40% to 50% of the time, often with leave to amend.
Federal motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings succeed at least in part roughly 40% to 50% of the time, and courts often grant leave to amend. A new Supreme Court decision limiting secondary liability raises the odds that some theory is narrowed. But the studios allege that Midjourney actively generates and promotes infringing outputs, which differs from the passive internet-access setting in Cox. The motion is fully briefed as of August 25, 2026, and a hearing on a pending motion is set for October 26, 2026. Dismissal of all contributory claims without leave to amend is less likely at the pleadings stage. Direct infringement claims remain regardless, which lowers the stakes and keeps settlement pressure modest in the short term. Settlement before a ruling is unlikely given no reported mediation result and ongoing expert discovery. The leading alternative to a ruling is delay, since courts sometimes fold such motions into summary judgment, so still pending stays at 24%. Nothing in the record since the October 6, 2026, forecast moved any outcome by five points or more.
How broadly the court reads Cox’s limits on secondary liability · Studios’ allegations of active promotion of infringing outputs · Fully briefed motion with an October 26, 2026, hearing · Possible deferral of the issue to summary judgment · Low near-term settlement pressure with direct claims intact
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 11, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.