A YouTube creator, David Gardner, sued Runway AI on February 23, 2026, in federal court in Los Angeles. He alleges Runway bypassed YouTube’s technical protections to download creators’ videos and train its AI video models. As of October 6, 2026, the case sits in New York, joined with two similar suits, and Runway’s motion to dismiss is still undecided. The claim is built on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention rule, not on ordinary copyright infringement, and no court has yet ruled on whether it can go forward against Runway.
What the Runway lawsuit alleges
Gardner’s complaint (Case 2:26-cv-01941, filed February 23, 2026) names Runway AI, Inc. as the only defendant. It says Runway accessed and extracted copyrighted videos from YouTube without creators’ consent to train its generative AI. It asks for statutory damages, an injunction and restitution under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a), California’s Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment. The proposed class is every person or entity in the United States who owns YouTube videos that Runway accessed at the file level by scraping or downloading them around YouTube’s technical protections. Reuters reported the filing.
Gardner was not first. A company called Ace Cam, Inc., which does business as Random Golf Club, filed a similar class action against Runway in New York on February 18, 2026, and Businessing LLC filed another there on February 27, according to a June 2, 2026 letter from the plaintiffs’ lawyers to the court.
What has happened since February
- March 27, 2026: the New York court consolidated the Ace Cam and Businessing cases and appointed interim co-lead counsel for the class.
- April 27, 2026: the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. It brings a single claim under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a) and alleges Runway scraped millions of YouTube videos to train its Gen-2 through Gen-4.5 video models, using automated download programs and virtual machines that rotated IP addresses. These are allegations, not findings.
- May 2026: Gardner’s case was transferred from Los Angeles to the Southern District of New York after Runway filed a stipulation to move it. The court cited the first-to-file doctrine. It now carries case number 1:26-cv-04360.
- May 27, 2026: Runway filed a motion to dismiss. Its main argument is that Section 1201(a) covers measures that control access to a work, not measures that only control copying, and that YouTube videos are publicly viewable. It also argues the plaintiffs did not allege authority over YouTube’s protections. Runway filed a reply on July 13, 2026.
- June 2, 2026: the plaintiffs asked to consolidate Gardner’s case with Ace Cam’s. Runway agreed, and the request carries the judge’s endorsement dated June 9.
- October 6, 2026: the plaintiffs sent the judge a letter pointing to an October 2 decision in another court, Ted Entertainment v. ByteDance (Northern District of California). In the plaintiffs’ account, that court denied a motion to dismiss in full on a similar YouTube claim. That is the plaintiffs’ characterization, and it is not binding on the New York judge.
The most recent filing we found is the October 6 letter. We found no ruling on Runway’s motion and no filing in which Runway has responded to the ByteDance letter. Check the docket before relying on this status.
Why a DMCA anti-circumvention claim matters
Most AI training suits argue that copying was infringement and that fair use does not excuse it. This one does not need either argument. The claim is that YouTube lets people stream videos but not download the underlying files, that Runway got around those protections to get the files, and that this is a violation by itself. Runway’s motion says the opposite: the protections only limit copying of videos anyone can watch, so the statute does not apply. The court’s answer to that question will decide whether this theory works against AI companies that collected video from YouTube.
What it means for companies that use AI video tools
None of the complaints names a Runway customer as a defendant. Runway is the only defendant in each one. Our read: the practical exposure for a small business is indirect, a vendor that loses or settles and then changes its prices, models or terms.
Three steps are reasonable. Read your AI video vendor’s terms for any promise to defend you if someone claims your output infringes. Keep a record of which tool made which marketing asset. And remember that a vendor’s defense promise is not the same as owning the output, which our guide to generative AI copyright risks for small business covers. If you are choosing a tool, our look at Gemini Omni Flash for small-business video is one comparison point, and AI and small business collects our wider coverage. AI video tools can give a small team production capacity it could not afford before; the point of checking terms is to keep that benefit.
Who is Runway
Runway makes generative AI video tools. Unite.AI reported that it raised $315 million in Series E funding on February 10, 2026, at a $5.3 billion valuation, 13 days before Gardner’s complaint was filed.
Frequently asked questions
Who is suing Runway AI?
David Gardner, a YouTube creator in Los Angeles County, filed a proposed class action on February 23, 2026. Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC filed similar suits in New York.
Has Runway lost the case?
No. As of the latest filing we found, dated October 6, 2026, Runway’s motion to dismiss is pending and no court has ruled on the merits.
Where is the case being heard?
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, after Gardner’s case moved from Los Angeles in May 2026.
