MiniMax, NanoNoble, and Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology seek to dismiss a US copyright case brought by major studios over their Hailuo AI platform, raising questions over jurisdiction and copyright scope in cross-border AI development.

Lawyers for MiniMax, NanoNoble and Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology have asked a US court to throw out a copyright suit brought by Disney, Universal, Warner Bros. Discovery and a wider group of studio affiliates over the Hailuo AI video and image service. In filings described by MLex, the companies argue that the case overreaches both geographically and legally, setting up an early test of how far US copyright law can reach when an AI platform is operated through entities spread across China, Singapore and the US.

The dispute began in September 2025, when the studios accused MiniMax of building Hailuo AI on what they called stolen intellectual property. CNBC reported that the complaint said the service was promoted as a kind of "Hollywood studio in your pocket", while the Los Angeles Times said the studios alleged the tool could generate well-known characters such as Darth Vader and Wonder Woman without permission. Bloomberg noted at the time that MiniMax, founded in 2021 and based in Shanghai, also runs other generative AI products, including Talkie, a chatbot competing in the US market.

In their dismissal bid, MiniMax and NanoNoble are challenging the studios on several fronts. According to MLex, MiniMax says the US court lacks jurisdiction over the Chinese parent company, while NanoNoble argues that characters are not separately copyrighted simply because they appear in registered works. The filing also contends that the studios have not pointed to registrations that specifically cover the characters at issue, a position that could complicate the case if the court accepts the distinction between the underlying works and the characters embedded in them.

The motion also pushes a broader argument that copyright owners are asking courts to solve a problem that the law is not designed to handle at scale. The companies say the allegedly infringing activity was not carried out by outside users but by the studios’ own prompt-based examples, and they argue that conduct occurring entirely outside the US should not be swept into American copyright claims. That framing echoes a larger industry fight now running through the courts: studios want to prevent AI systems from reproducing protected characters and styles, while developers are increasingly arguing that the rules for policing those uses remain unsettled and are often better suited to legislation or licensing deals than litigation.

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph: - Paragraph 1: [5] - Paragraph 2: [2], [3], [4] - Paragraph 3: [5] - Paragraph 4: [5], [6]

Source: Noah Wire Services

Verification / Sources

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We've since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 8

Notes: The article discusses a recent motion filed on April 10, 2026, by MiniMax and Nanonoble to dismiss a copyright lawsuit initiated by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery. (mlex.com) The lawsuit was originally filed in September 2025, indicating that the content is current and not recycled. However, the article's publication date is not specified, which raises concerns about its freshness. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

Quotes check

Score: 7

Notes: The article includes direct quotes from MLex, a legal news source. (mlex.com) However, the exact wording of these quotes cannot be independently verified, as the original MLex article is behind a paywall. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

Source reliability

Score: 6

Notes: The article cites MLex, a specialist news and analysis platform on legal risk and regulation. (mlex.com) While MLex is a reputable source within its niche, it is not as widely known as major news organisations. Additionally, the article's publication date is not specified, and the content is behind a paywall, limiting access for independent verification. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

Plausibility check

Score: 8

Notes: The article reports on a legal motion to dismiss a high-profile copyright lawsuit involving major entertainment companies and a Chinese AI firm. This aligns with known industry trends and previous legal actions against AI companies for copyright infringement. (latimes.com) However, the lack of a specified publication date and the paywalled nature of the source raise concerns about the article's timeliness and accessibility for verification. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The article discusses a recent motion to dismiss a high-profile copyright lawsuit involving major entertainment companies and a Chinese AI firm. However, the lack of a specified publication date, reliance on a single paywalled source, and the inability to independently verify quotes and details raise significant concerns about the article's freshness, reliability, and verifiability. (news.bloomberglaw.com)