DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED This motion raises the following issues: Whether the complaint should be dismissed for lack of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. 1. Article III Standing. Whether the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to obtain Court approval to proceed anonymously. 2. Anonymous Pleading. Whether the complaint should be dismissed for failing to specify the allegations against each OpenAI Entity in violation of pleading standards. 3. Minimal Pleading Requirements. Whether the Copyright Act preempts the state law causes of action for tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. 4. Preemption. Whether this claim should be dismissed for failing to (i) identify specific works from which Copyright Management Information (“CMI”) was removed, (ii) allege removal of CMI from identical copies, (iii) allege the requisite intent; (iv) allege distribution of works with removed CMI; or (v) allege false CMI conveyed in connection with copies of those works. 5. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1205 (Count I). Whether this claim should be dismissed for failure to adequately plead that a contract exists and that any OpenAI Entity breached it. 6. Breach of Contract (Count II). Whether this claim should be dismissed for failure to plead that a contract exists between plaintiffs and a thirdparty with which any OpenAI Entity allegedly interfered. 7. Tortious Interference in a Contractual Relationship (Count III). Whether this claim should be dismissed because the Lanham Act does not provide a remedy for false attribution of authorship. 8. False Designation (Count V). Whether this claim should be dismissed because there is no standalone cause of action for unjust enrichment and Plaintiffs fail to plead the required elements. 9. Unjust Enrichment (Count VI). Whether this claim should be dismissed for (i) failure to sufficiently plead a predicate violation or lack of an adequate legal remedy for the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim under California Business. & Professions Code § 17200 and (ii) an actionable basis for a common law or Lanham Act claim. 10. Unfair Competition (Count VII). Whether this claim should be dismissed for (i) lack of statutory standing, (ii) failure to provide written notice of CCPA violations prior to filing, (iii) lack of a private right of action for certain allegations, and (iv) failure to plead facts showing a violation of OpenAI Entities’ duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. 11. California Consumer Privacy Act, § 1798.150 (“CCPA”) (Count IX). Whether this claim should be dismissed for failure to plead a duty of care owed to Plaintiffs, breach of that duty, causation, and actual damages. 12. Negligence (Count X). Whether this claim should be dismissed because civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action and, in any event, the complaint fails to adequately plead the role or wrongful acts of each defendant in the alleged conspiracy. 13. Civil Conspiracy (Count XI). Whether this claim should be dismissed because there is no standalone cause of action for declaratory relief. 14. Declaratory Relief (Count XII). 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 8, 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
