Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.
Key facts
- Case: Ace Cam, Inc. and Businessing LLC v. Runway AI, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01362-LAK, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Ruling: On October 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Runway's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.
- Who is suing: Ace Cam, Inc., which runs the Random Golf Club YouTube channel, and Businessing LLC, which runs the Ali Spagnola channel. They sue for themselves and a proposed class of YouTube creators.
- Who is sued: Runway AI, Inc., a New York company that makes AI tools that turn text or images into video.
- Core allegation: The creators say Runway got around YouTube's technical protections to download videos in bulk and train its AI video models, which they say violates the anti-circumvention part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
- What the ruling means: The case moves forward. The judge accepted the complaint's allegations as true for now, as the law requires at this stage. He did not find that Runway did anything wrong.
- Status: No class has been certified and there is no settlement or claim process.
In this article
- What the judge decided
- Who the parties are
- How YouTube protects its video files
- What the creators allege Runway did
- Why this is a DMCA case
- How the case got here
- Who the proposed class would include
- What YouTube creators can do now
- What happens next
- Frequently asked questions
A federal judge in Manhattan has refused to throw out a proposed class action accusing AI video company Runway of breaking through YouTube's technical safeguards to collect creators' videos for training data. The October 30 ruling is one of the first decisions to say that YouTube videos can be protected by the DMCA's anti-circumvention rule even though anyone can watch them for free.
The decision does not decide whether Runway actually did what the creators claim. It only means the case is strong enough on paper to continue.
What the judge decided
Runway asked the court to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), the procedure a defendant uses to argue that a complaint fails to state a legal claim even if everything in it is true. Judge Kaplan rejected each of Runway's main arguments in a 15-page memorandum opinion.
Runway argued that YouTube videos are publicly available, so there is nothing to "access" without permission and nothing to circumvent. The judge disagreed. "The public nature of content that has been uploaded to YouTube does not render it unprotected because the public's viewership of the content necessarily is subject to YouTube's TPMs," he wrote, referring to technological protection measures.
Runway also argued that YouTube's safeguards only stop copying, not access, and that the DMCA provision at issue covers only access controls. The judge, citing a 2017 federal appeals decision in Disney Enterprises v. VidAngel, said the law "does not provide that a TPM cannot serve as both an access control and a use control."
Finally, Runway argued that the creators never set up the protections themselves, since YouTube did. The judge said the statute does not require that. It is enough, he wrote, that the creators plausibly alleged they authorized YouTube to put the protections in place when they uploaded their videos.
A ruling on the pleadings, not on the facts At this stage a judge must assume the complaint's factual allegations are true. Denying a motion to dismiss means the claims are legally plausible. Runway can still contest every factual claim later in the case.
Who the parties are
The plaintiffs. Ace Cam, Inc., a Texas company doing business as Random Golf Club, says Runway scraped at least 390 of its YouTube videos. Businessing LLC, a California company behind the Ali Spagnola channel, says at least 1,200 of its videos were scraped. Both are YouTube content creators who earn money from their channels.
The defendant. Runway AI, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in New York City. According to the complaint, it sells generative video models, including Gen-2, Gen-3, Gen-4 and Gen-4.5, to creators, businesses and enterprise customers.
The lawyers. The opinion lists plaintiffs' counsel from Milberg; Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody and Agnello; Ellzey and Associates; EKSM; and Ahdoot and Wolfson. Runway is represented by Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe.
How YouTube protects its video files
The complaint describes five technical protections that YouTube uses so videos play only inside its own player. The judge summarized them this way:
- A rolling cipher. YouTube scrambles a digital signature and withholds a usable file location until an authorized process unscrambles it.
- IP blocking and rate limiting. YouTube cuts off requests when it sees unusually high volumes from one source.
- Session-bound URLs. Video files are delivered only to links tied to a particular viewing session, and those links expire.
- CAPTCHA challenges. Tests that separate people from bots appear when traffic looks automated.
- Proof-of-origin tokens. These check that requests for video segments come from an authorized YouTube player.
YouTube's terms of service also prohibit scraping, unauthorized downloading and bulk extraction without permission, the opinion notes.
What the creators allege Runway did
The complaint alleges that Runway, directly and through agents and contractors, used automated tools and workflows to bypass those protections, download large volumes of YouTube videos and assemble training data for its AI models. It says the rolling cipher must have been defeated with a descrambling tool such as yt-dlp, a widely used open-source downloader. It also alleges Runway rotated through many IP addresses to avoid detection and blocking.
The complaint relies heavily on a July 25, 2024 report by the tech news site 404 Media. According to the complaint, a leaked internal Runway dataset described in that reporting included about 3,968 YouTube channels and more than 100,000 videos. The complaint also quotes 404 Media's source as saying Runway bought proxies so its download requests would not be blocked by YouTube. Runway has not admitted the allegations, and the court made no finding about the dataset.
The creators say they were harmed in six ways: lost advertising revenue, lost YouTube Premium revenue, lost progress toward joining YouTube's Partner Program, lost algorithm-driven growth, harm to the market for licensing their videos, and loss of control over their work.
Why this is a DMCA case
Most copyright cases are about copying. This one is built on a different rule. Section 1201(a) of the DMCA says that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" protected by copyright. To circumvent means to descramble, decrypt, or "otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair" a technological measure.
That framing matters for two reasons. First, it focuses on how videos were obtained rather than on whether AI training is a fair use, a separate and heavily contested question in other AI lawsuits. Second, it affects damages. Under 17 U.S.C. 1203(c)(3)(A), a court may award statutory damages of $200 to $2,500 "per act of circumvention," instead of actual damages. Statutory damages are amounts set by law that a court can award without proof of exact losses.
Statutory damages are a range, not a payout estimate The $200 to $2,500 range applies only if Runway is found liable, and the court decides what counts as an act of circumvention and what amount is appropriate. Nothing has been awarded, and no per-creator amount exists.
How the case got here
- February 2026: Ace Cam filed the first complaint, and Businessing LLC filed a separate case later that month.
- April 27, 2026: The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint combining their claims.
- After April 2026: Runway moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, arguing the DMCA claim failed as a matter of law.
- October 30, 2026: Judge Kaplan denied the motion to dismiss.
The case is one of several DMCA suits filed by YouTube creators against AI developers in 2026. Other cases reported in legal news coverage target companies including Nvidia, Snap, ByteDance and Apple. Each is separate, and a ruling in one does not decide the others.
Who the proposed class would include
The consolidated complaint proposes a class of "All persons and entities whose videos were posted on YouTube and that Defendant accessed at the file level by scraping, downloading, or otherwise extracting underlying video files from YouTube." The complaint says the class period should run as far back as the statute of limitations allows, which it describes as three years before the complaint was filed, and argues that period should be extended because the alleged scraping was concealed.
A proposed class is only a request. The judge has not certified a class, which means no group of creators is officially part of the case yet beyond the two named plaintiffs.
What YouTube creators can do now
If you upload videos to YouTube, there is nothing to file today. There is no settlement, claim form or deadline. Some practical points:
- Keep records of your channel. Upload dates, video counts and analytics may matter if a class is later certified.
- Watch for official notices. If the court certifies a class or approves a settlement, notice would come through a court-approved process.
- Talk to a lawyer about your own situation. Creators with registered copyrights or unusual facts may have options beyond a class case.
No claim form exists Be cautious about anyone who says you can collect money from Runway right now. The case has not reached class certification, let alone a settlement.
You can browse our list of class action cases you can join for cases that are open to claims today. This article is for information only and is not legal advice.
Runway's public response to the ruling was not available when this article was published. Its arguments above come from the court's opinion.
What happens next
With the motion to dismiss denied, Runway will be expected to file an answer to the complaint. The case will then move toward discovery, where each side can demand documents and testimony, including evidence about how Runway gathered its training data. The plaintiffs will later ask the court to certify the class, and Runway can oppose. The parties could also settle at any point. We will update this story as the case develops.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Runway AI YouTube lawsuit about?
YouTube creators allege Runway bypassed YouTube's technical protections to download videos and train its AI video models, in violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rule.
What did the judge decide on October 30, 2026?
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Runway's motion to dismiss, so the case continues. He did not decide whether Runway is liable.
Can I join the Runway class action?
Not yet. No class has been certified and there is no settlement or claim form.
Why does it matter that YouTube videos are public?
Runway argued public videos cannot be protected by an access control. The judge said public viewing still runs through YouTube's protections, so the DMCA can apply.
How much money could creators get?
No money has been awarded. If Runway were found liable, the DMCA allows statutory damages of $200 to $2,500 per act of circumvention, as decided by the court.
Has Runway admitted scraping YouTube videos?
No. The scraping claims are allegations. The court assumed they were true only for the purpose of deciding the motion to dismiss.
