Programmers' Arguments in the GitHub Lawsuit Are 'Dead on Arrival'

Github Motion to dismiss Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 22 of 26. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here ARGUMENT IV. PLAINTIFFS’ TORT AND UCL CLAIMS FAIL. D. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring A UCL Unlawful Competition Claim And Fail To State A Claim. Plaintiffs duplicate their DMCA, tort, passing off, and privacy claims as purported violations by GitHub of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Count VII). This is dead on arrival. The “UCL’s standing requirements” are even “more stringent than the federal standing requirements.” Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 324 (2011). A private plaintiff may only sue under the UCL if it has “suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Standing for the UCL is “substantially narrower than federal standing under Article III.” Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 324; see also McGee, 982 F.3d at 705 n.3 (same). Here, because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, see Part I, supra, they certainly lack UCL standing. Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege the required “lost money or property.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. They assert that “Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered monetary damages as a result of GitHub’s and OpenAI’s conduct.” Compl. ¶ 213. But Plaintiffs do not allege any factual theory of how they suffered monetary loss as a result of the training of Copilot or its suggestions, let alone any specific allegations supporting such a theory. Their “[t]hreadbare recital[] of the elements of [the] cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do[es] not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In all events, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim fails because it is dependent upon otherwise defective DMCA, tort, passing off, and privacy violations. “[T]o state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, a plaintiff must sufficiently plead a predicate violation.” Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 505 F. Supp. 3d 961, 976 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs did not. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 11, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. documentcloud.org

Programmers' Arguments in the GitHub Lawsuit Are 'Dead on Arrival'

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

GitHub, Microsoft Had No Contractual Obligation to Programmers Whose Code They Used to train Copilot

Programmers Brought the GitHub Lawsuit on 'Mere Code Suggestions' By Copilot

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

DOE v. Github: Lawsuit Falls Under California's Jurisdiction Because of GitHub & OpenAI's HQ

DOE v. Github: Plaintiffs' Counsel Has Extensive Experience in Advising Clients on IP Disputes

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

GitHub, Microsoft Had No Contractual Obligation to Programmers Whose Code They Used to train Copilot

Programmers Brought the GitHub Lawsuit on 'Mere Code Suggestions' By Copilot

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

DOE v. Github: Lawsuit Falls Under California's Jurisdiction Because of GitHub & OpenAI's HQ

DOE v. Github: Plaintiffs' Counsel Has Extensive Experience in Advising Clients on IP Disputes

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps