As lawsuits involving AI, social media, privacy, competition, and platform accountability expand worldwide, courts are emerging as central actors shaping technology governance. A new tech litigation tracker developed by the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Tech Justice Law, and Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture & Technology program centralizes and tracks technology-related litigation and regulatory actions across jurisdictions and issue areas.
Courts are becoming a central arena for shaping how technology companies are governed. Across the United States and internationally, hundreds of lawsuits focus on technology companies – spanning issues from antitrust and AI copyright to consumer protection, privacy, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and minor’s online safety. As these cases move through courts and regulatory bodies, they have the potential to shape how emerging technologies and digital platforms are governed, designed, and deployed.
The TRAL Tracker (Tech-Related Actions and Litigation Tracker) is a new centralized resource that brings together these tech-related lawsuits and regulatory enforcement actions across various jurisdictions. Developed by the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Tech Justice Law, and Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture & Technology program, the tracker is a routinely updated resource designed to monitor how courts and regulators are responding to emerging technology issues.
Primarily focused on US federal litigation, the tracker also includes selected state and international cases, providing a broader view of how courts and regulators are responding to legal claims related to technology companies. Organized by issue area and updated as cases develop, the tracker is designed to be an accessible, easy-to-use resource. Users can also suggest additional cases for inclusion.
Cases advancing through courts and regulatory processes will shape the future of technology companies and their products. The TRAL Tracker helps make these developments more visible and accessible as they unfold across jurisdictions.
Access the tracker here.
KGI’s Age Assurance Rules provides practical recommendations for designing age assurance rules that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, service availability, competition, and openness.
KGI’s Assigning Responsibility for Age Assurance examines how policymakers can allocate responsibility for age assurance across the digital ecosystem. It provides practical recommendations for assigning age assurance obligations in ways that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, competition, accessibility, and openness.
/
KGI’s Measuring Risk II report examines what EU risk assessments and US litigation reveal about Snap and YouTube’s approaches to risks on their platforms, with a particular focus on risks to minors. The report explores the gap between what these platforms publicly disclose about risk mitigation and what has emerged through discovery in US litigation, including their own internal research, product development, and risk evaluation.
