Warrington Parker is the managing partner of Crowell & Moring's San Francisco office, an experienced first-chair trial lawyer, and a former federal prosecutor. He has tried more than 20 cases to verdict across a wide range of civil and criminal matters, including copyright, trade secret, securities fraud, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, product liability, and breach of contract disputes.
Live Video-Broadcast: September 25, 2026
Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs
The Fair Use Fight Was Only Half the Battle
Three 2025 federal district court rulings, Ross, Bartz, and Kadrey, now define the fair use landscape for LLM training data. California's AB 2013 and the EU AI Act's GPAI rules now impose disclosure duties on that same conduct. Litigation exposure and compliance exposure arrive together.
Train on pirated data and the defense position weakens under fair use. Ignore AB 2013's 12 mandatory disclosure categories and enforcement risk follows, even while xAI v. Bonta sits on appeal. Skip the EU AI Act's TDM opt-out mechanism and GPAI documentation duties still attach. The $1.5 billion Bartz settlement shows the litigation price of guessing wrong. Scraping-based state law claims and DMCA § 1202 CMI claims follow, and § 301 preemption does not always stop them.
Attendees leave with practitioner work product. A structured defense framework for copyright and state law scraping claims. A minimum viable due diligence framework for companies subject to AB 2013, the EU AI Act, and potential GDPR exposure. And the provisions to negotiate into training data licensing agreements so clients are protected from downstream copyright liability. This is judgment and drafting, not a doctrine recital.
Key topics to be discussed:
This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.
Date / Time: September 25, 2026
Closed-captioning available
Warrington Parker, Managing Partner | Crowell & Moring LLP
Warrington Parker is the managing partner of Crowell & Moring’s San Francisco office, an experienced first-chair trial lawyer, and a former federal prosecutor. He has tried more than 20 cases to verdict across a wide range of civil and criminal matters, including copyright, trade secret, securities fraud, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, product liability, and breach of contract disputes. He is a member of the firm’s Litigation, White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement, and Investigations groups.
Warrington earned his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and his law degree from Harvard Law School, where he served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1989 to 1990. He is admitted to practice in California.
The Daily Journal named Warrington a Top Artificial Intelligence Lawyer in California in 2024, recognizing his significant contributions to artificial intelligence law. As managing partner, he leads Crowell & Moring’s San Francisco office and is recognized for his strategic approach to complex litigation.
The Bar Association of San Francisco appointed Warrington to the Board of Directors of its Justice & Diversity Center, effective January 1, 2026. He has also served as co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Criminal Litigation Committee.
Warrington previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. In private practice, he represents clients in False Claims Act matters, commercial and technology litigation, and disputes involving claimed violations of state and federal statutes and regulations. He has conducted criminal and civil internal investigations for companies and boards of directors in the United States and abroad, including FCPA and financial irregularity investigations in China, Japan, and India. His clients have included eBay, Instacart, and StubHub.
SESSION 1 – Defending Copyright and Scraping Claims Over AI Training Data | 1:00pm – 2:00pm
This session examines the defense of copyright infringement and data-scraping claims arising from AI model training, focusing on the three landmark 2025 federal district court rulings that now define the fair use landscape for LLM training data. Attorneys will learn how to evaluate client exposure based on data provenance, market substitution evidence, and output containment, and how to deploy preemption, early motion practice, and settlement benchmarks in active litigation. Participants will leave with a structured defense framework applicable to both copyright and state-law scraping claims.
BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm
SESSION 2 – Training Data Diligence, Licensing, and California’s New Disclosure Law | 2:10pm – 3:10pm
This session covers the compliance and transactional obligations attorneys must understand when a client trains or deploys a generative AI model using third-party data. Attendees will examine California’s AB 2013 Training Data Transparency Act — its 12 mandatory disclosure categories, retroactive scope, and early compliance patterns — alongside the EU AI Act’s parallel GPAI training data obligations. The session also addresses practical training data due diligence frameworks, the structure of content licensing deals, and how the emerging licensing market intersects with fair use defenses in ongoing litigation.
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Not Eligible
2 General Hours
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General