Peter Law Group
Date: January 30, 2026
Audience: California employment lawyers, IP and AI counsel, creative industry leaders, and compliance teams
There’s a new kind of dispute sweeping through courts, studios, and startups alike—one that’s not just about creativity, but about accountability.
In a recent Deadline Hollywood article titled “When AI Plunders IP, Who Is to Blame?”, journalist Dominic Patten unpacks the mounting tensions between generative AI companies and the creators whose work these tools are trained on. The problem is simple, and yet incredibly complex: AI models are learning to write, illustrate, and compose by consuming copyrighted content—without permission or compensation.
For artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers, this feels all too familiar. Their intellectual property is being repackaged by machines, and the companies behind those machines are profiting from the results. But the tension doesn’t stop with artists or Hollywood studios. In fact, this kind of dispute should raise red flags for anyone working in labor law or employee rights—especially in California.
The Employment Law Parallel
The parallels to employment disputes are striking. Consider how many lawsuits we’ve seen involving misclassified workers. A Los Angeles independent contractor misclassification case often starts with someone doing real work, delivering real value, but being denied benefits or overtime because they were labeled incorrectly.
This isn’t so different from how creators feel when their work is mined to train AI systems without recognition or pay.
In employment law, we’ve seen the rise of wage and hour class action attorneys in Los Angeles taking on companies that underpay, overwork, or ignore meal and rest break laws. Similarly, writers and creators are now filing lawsuits—over 70 at the time of Patten’s article—demanding to know how and why their copyrighted content was used without authorization.
Who Benefits—and Who Pays the Price
Penske Media, Deadline’s own parent company, is one of the plaintiffs. They’ve sued Google, claiming the tech giant’s new AI-generated summaries are pulling from Penske’s publications and discouraging users from visiting the original sources.
In employment terms, this feels akin to a wage and hour class action in California, where a company profits while cutting corners on compliance and compensation.
There’s also the broader issue of retaliation and silence. In cases involving California anti-retaliation laws and gig workers, we often see power dynamics that discourage whistleblowing or reporting abuse. Creators may fear being cut out of AI-era opportunities if they push back against misuse. Just as a wrongful termination lawyer in California might fight for an employee dismissed for raising concerns, we’re now seeing lawyers step in for creators who are increasingly sidelined in favor of algorithms.
Accountability in the Age of Automation
Patten’s article asks a pointed question: who is accountable when AI infringes on intellectual property? The machine itself can’t be sued. But the companies that train, deploy, and monetize these systems can—and are being taken to court.
In that sense, this situation is not unlike misclassification class actions in LA’s hospitality industry, where the burden is on the employer—not the worker—to get classification and compensation right.
As lawyers know, systems are only as fair as the structures that enforce them. Whether you’re dealing with common wage and hour violations in Los Angeles or unlicensed use of creative works, the pattern is the same: someone provides labor or content, and someone else benefits disproportionately.
Why California May Lead the Way
We are at a turning point. Just as California has led in creating legal recourse for misclassified or underpaid workers—through PAGA claims and beyond—it may also play a role in shaping how AI platforms are held accountable for what, and whom, they train on.
For professionals in law, tech, and the creative industries, the question now isn’t just about what AI can do. It’s about what it should be allowed to do—and who bears the responsibility when it crosses ethical or legal lines.
Further Reading
The full Deadline article is worth reading for anyone navigating this fast-evolving landscape:
https://deadline.com/2026/01/when-ai-plunders-ip-who-is-to-blame-1236699715
Because whether you’re a misclassification attorney in Los Angeles, a digital rights advocate, or a studio executive, one truth is universal: creative work—and human labor—deserves protection. And those protections need to evolve just as fast as the technology challenging them.
