A federal judge has rejected MiniMax's attempt to throw out a copyright lawsuit brought by Disney, clearing the way for the case to move forward. Disney claims the Chinese AI company used its copyrighted content without permission to train its artificial intelligence systems.
The Lawsuit
Disney filed the suit earlier this year, accusing MiniMax of scraping protected material — including movie scripts, character designs, and other intellectual property — to build its AI models. The entertainment giant argues that the unauthorized use violates federal copyright law and seeks damages plus an injunction against further use.
MiniMax moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Disney hadn't stated a valid claim and that the alleged copying fell under fair use. The company also raised jurisdictional issues, saying the case shouldn't be heard in a U.S. court.
The Ruling
Judge John F. Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California disagreed. In a brief order published Tuesday, he denied MiniMax's motion in full, finding that Disney's allegations were sufficient to proceed. The ruling does not decide the merits of the case — it only means the lawsuit survives the initial procedural hurdle.
Legal observers note that the decision is narrow. The judge didn't weigh in on the fair-use defense or the broader question of whether training AI on copyrighted data is legal. Those issues will be litigated in the coming months.
What's at Stake
This case is one of several high-profile disputes between content owners and AI developers. Studios, publishers, and artists are increasingly suing tech companies over the unlicensed use of their work to train large language models and image generators. A ruling against MiniMax could set a precedent that makes it harder for AI firms to scrape publicly available content without paying for it.
Disney has some of the most aggressively protected intellectual property in the world. Its lawyers are expected to push for broad discovery into MiniMax's training data and methods — something the company has so far tried to keep confidential.
The next hearing is scheduled for late September, where both sides will discuss a discovery schedule. No trial date has been set.
