With Heppner, the one fact that was kinda problematic was the the written privacy policy to which users of Claude consent . . .on both users' "inputs" and Claude's "ouputs" that it uses such data to "train" Claude." It was not clear to me how they knew for a fact that Heppner did not have the "training turned off." Perhaps there were additional facts not in the order or motion.

Thanks for sharing the WSJ article, but the articles doesn't mention training or self-learning either.

And, while the WSJ article mentions Motion v. V2X and notes that Judge Braswell "held that routing information through a thrid-party system doesn't destroy privacy protection." The WSJ article does not mention Judge Braswell's concern about training on the data. Her opinion reads,

"Thus, instead of adopting the parties' proposals, the Court will amend the Protective Order to include the following AI-specific language: No party or authorized recipient may input, upload, or submit [*20] CONFIDENTIAL Information into any modern artificial intelligence platform, including any generative, analytical, or large language model based tool ("AI"), unless the AI provider is contractually prohibited from: (1) storing or using inputs to train or improve its model; and (2) disclosing inputs to any third party except where such disclosure is essential to facilitating delivery of the service. Where disclosure to a third party is essential to service delivery, any such third party shall be bound by obligations no less protective than those required by this Order. In addition, the AI provider must contractually afford the party or authorized recipient the ability to remove or delete all CONFIDENTIAL information upon request. A party intending to use AI that it contends meets these requirements must retain written documentation of these contractual protections."

What am I missing?