A New York federal judge has rejected Runway AI’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that it bypassed YouTube’s technical protections to obtain videos for AI training. In an October 30 opinion, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan allowed the creators’ anti-circumvention claim to proceed. The decision addresses whether the complaint plausibly states a claim; it does not establish that Runway committed the alleged acts or owes damages. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
What the creators alleged
Ace Cam, doing business as Random Golf Club, and Businessing brought the proposed class action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provision, Section 1201(a). According to the opinion’s account of the complaint, they allege that Runway obtained their YouTube videos without authorization to train its generative video models. Those allegations, including descriptions of the collection methods, have not been resolved through a trial in this ruling. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
Public viewing did not resolve the access question
Runway argued that videos freely available to watch on YouTube were not protected by the access-control provision in the way the creators claimed. It also distinguished restrictions on copying from restrictions on access. Kaplan rejected those arguments as grounds for dismissal on the allegations presented. He explained that a technical measure can serve both functions and that publicly viewable content can still be delivered through controlled processes. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
The complaint identified a rolling cipher, IP blocking and rate limits, session-bound URLs, CAPTCHA challenges and proof-of-origin tokens. As the opinion describes the pleading, these mechanisms restrict delivery to authorized playback processes, and Runway allegedly bypassed at least one of them to download videos in bulk. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage. It did not independently verify the operation of the platform or a particular scraping tool. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
Kaplan also rejected the argument that the creators had to install the technical protections themselves. He found that the complaint plausibly alleged their authorization for YouTube to put the protections in place. This was a ruling on the adequacy of that allegation, rather than a factual determination that every creator had supplied the necessary authority. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
Why the collection record matters
Analysis. For teams assessing AI training datasets, the opinion illustrates why the method and authorization of collection can matter alongside the content collected. Records of the source platform, the collection process and the permissions relied on may help explain facts that this complaint put in dispute. The ruling should not be read as a blanket decision about all AI training or all copying of publicly visible material; its reasoning addresses the pleaded access-control claim in this case. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
Status and limits
The October 30 opinion denies the motion to dismiss; it does not certify a class, award damages or finally resolve liability. A November 2 CourtListener check returned the opinion’s docket entry and no later entries in the search from October 30 onward. That public index is not a complete docket or proof that no later event exists. This report describes the pleading-stage decision, with later proceedings and finality unconfirmed. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.; Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.
Sources
Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc.. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. 1:26-cv-01362 (LAK). Filed 2026-10-30. Unknown in CourtListener metadata; district-court pleading-stage memorandum opinion.
AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.