Six major tech lawsuits to keep tabs on in 2025

AI copyright and effect on web traffic

Multiple tech firms, including OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta Platforms, are entangled in a series of lawsuits from copyright owners such as authors, musicians and news outlets. The tech companies allegedly scraped owners' work from the internet to train generative AI models without permission or payment offers.

Tech companies say their use of copyrighted material is considered fair use—a legal defense that enables limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission—because it teaches AI how to make new, transformative content. The owners of the copyrighted material say their works are being used to create rival content, and their intellectual property is being used without compensation.

Online education platform Chegg sued Google in February 2025, claiming its AI Overview (AIO) summaries reduced web traffic and hurt user engagement. The lawsuit also says the AIO product created unfair competition, and AI overviews or summaries generate answers to user queries at the top of the results page. This, in turn, pushes other links further down the results page.

Companies depending on website traffic for engagement—such as media—have also expressed concern over AI overviews. A study from Terakeet, an online brand management company, found that websites included in AI overviews had 3.2 times more clicks than excluded web pages.

In the company's fourth-quarter earnings call, Chegg CEO and President Nathan Schultz said, "Traffic is being blocked from ever coming to Chegg because of Google's AIO and their use of Chegg's content to keep visitors on their platform. Google AIO has transformed Google from a 'search engine' into an 'answer engine,' displaying AI-generated content sourced from third-party sites like Chegg."

What's next: The court must decide whether using copyrighted material constitutes fair use or infringement. Either way, the ruling promises to set a precedent on the limits of AI training and the boundaries of intellectual property in the AI era.

Remedies from an infringement ruling may force companies to pay copyright holders for content use, raising the cost of training AI models. Defendants say requiring payment to use copyrighted material stifles innovation.

Apple

Another DOJ case, this time against Apple, accuses the company of suppressing competitors and holding monopoly power over the smartphone market, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The DOJ filed the suit in conjunction with multiple states.

The case alleges that Apple's closed ecosystem restricts cross-platform functionality and limits consumer choices, allowing Apple to increase costs for both consumers and developers. The suit alleges Apple imposes contractual restrictions on developers, enabling the company to restrict products and services that improve cross-platform functionality. Other Apple practices are also under scrutiny, including blocking super apps that would ease a consumer's switch to non-iOS devices and suppressing mobile cloud streaming.

What's next: Apple filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the case is speculative and that the company's closed ecosystem benefits consumers. The judge hasn't ruled on whether the case proceeds to trial or if any -- or all -- claims are dismissed. Apple's recent antitrust case in the United Kingdom was dismissed.

If the DOJ case goes to trial and if the ruling favors the DOJ, Apple may have to ease restrictions on developers and third-party app stores, potentially creating more competitors in the market.

Google

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that Google holds an illegal monopoly over digital advertising and the ad tech market.

The suit claims Google uses its technology, which matches online advertisers with publishers, to lock in advertisers and act as a middleman in buying and selling digital ads. This enables Google to drive up costs through excessive fees and exclude competitors. The suit maintains that these practices violate antitrust laws and protections against unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Google's attempt to dismiss the case was denied. A three-week trial started in September 2024. Just before the trial on Sept. 8, 2024, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, argued the company's tech tools were beneficial for advertisers and publishers, calling them "simple, affordable and effective."

What's next: A federal district court in Virginia is expected to deliver a ruling soon. This is the DOJ's second antitrust lawsuit against Google. The first ruling, in favor of the DOJ, is currently in its remedies phase.

If the DOJ prevails this time, the case moves to a second trial for remedies—breaking up parts of Google's ad tech or imposing operational restrictions among possible outcomes—with broader implications for the entire ad tech market and future Big Tech antitrust enforcement. Mulholland shared her concerns that the DOJ's proposed remedies are too broad.

Meta

In a similar antitrust case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is suing Meta, formerly Facebook, alleging it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to stifle competitors and maintain a monopoly in the personal social networking market. The FTC said Meta uses a buy-or-bury strategy to exclude competitors and dominate the market, allegedly overpaying for Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain its monopoly. These practices, the suit says, suppressed competitors and limited consumer choices.

Meta filed a motion to dismiss the suit, saying the case relies on an overly narrow definition of social media markets and doesn't account for competitors such as TikTok, Snapchat and X. It also argued its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram were good for consumers and competitors alike. However, that motion was rejected. Still, the ruling acknowledged the FTC "[faces] hard questions about whether its claims can hold up in the crucible of trial."

What's next: The bench trial is scheduled for April 14.

If the judge rules in favor of the FTC, Meta faces potential divestiture of WhatsApp and Instagram. Other penalties, such as forced operational changes in its approach to acquisitions, are also possible. Any significant changes to Meta's business structure and strategy would also shake the broader social networking ecosystem.

TikTok

TikTok is challenging the Supreme Court's proposed ban on the platform unless its parent company, ByteDance, is sold. TikTok argues the ban, introduced amid rising data privacy and national security concerns, is unconstitutional and violates First Amendment rights. The company also claims no concrete evidence of data sharing or foreign data access exists.

Although the Supreme Court ruled against TikTok in the suit, the app was shut down for only 14 hours on Jan. 18. It was then restored with an executive order from President Donald Trump, giving TikTok a 75-day extension to comply with the law and sell to an American company. 

What's next: TikTok is in limbo -- still accessible in the U.S. – with no reported plans to sell the company. If a buyer is found, TikTok gets a 90-day extension. Otherwise, TikTok's ban begins in the U.S. on April 5. 

X

X, formerly Twitter, recently broadened an ongoing antitrust lawsuit against advertisers that allegedly conspired to boycott X. The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) organized the ad boycott amid concerns X might not follow its digital safety initiative -- the Global Alliance for Responsible Media -- which has since been discontinued. At least 18 prominent WFA members -- including Unilever, Mars and CVS -- paused or significantly reduced ads on X, leading to lost revenue, the suit claims. X is adding other major organizations to the suit, including Lego, Nestlé and Shell.

X's lawsuit alleges X lost billions in ad revenue, which significantly affected the platform even years later.

What's next: Nothing has happened with the suit. The judge initially assigned to the case recused himself after reports he owned stock in Tesla, another Elon Musk company, which was found in his public financial disclosure required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. A few months later, a second judge recused himself without explanation.

Alison Roller is a freelance writer with experience in tech, HR and marketing.