The Association of American Publishers today filed reply comments in the U.S. Copyright Office inquiry into the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI) in response to flawed and inaccurate assertions submitted by some tech companies and/or their investors in the first comment round including tired assertions that the rights of authors and publishers are an obstacle to innovation. AAP filed a lengthy submission that includes a multitude of points, including: *Big tech petitions the government “for cover from liability for their calculated disregard of authorship, also ignoring that rights holders today already routinely license their works for all kinds of digital uses.” *“Rather than working with copyright owners, these companies seek to appropriate literature and other invaluable intellectual property for their own commercial gain, and to bend the law to their will."

*GAAP Results: Revenue of $451 million (-7%), Operating loss of -$16 million (+4%), and EPS loss of -$1.67 (-$1.35). GAAP earnings impacted by impairment charges totalling $103 million, including non-cash goodwill and assets held-for-sale impairment and loss on sale of a business. “Our Q1 performance was as expected as we continue to execute on our plans and position Wiley for the future,” said Brian Napack, President and CEO. “While Research was down due to an unusual publishing pause in the second half of last year, we are seeing underlying strength and momentum returning, including growing article volumes, higher journal impact scores, and new partner signings. We are making steady progress on our transition and recently streamlined Wiley into one focused, market-facing team to better leverage our collective strength and drive operating leverage.”

A Nike customer is accusing the brand of greenwashing. In a complaint filed May 10 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Ellis claimed that Nike uses “deceptive and misleading” statements when marketing its sustainability collection. Specifically, the suit claims that Nike “deceives consumers into believing that they're receiving products that are sustainable, made with recycled fibers,” and can reduce carbon one’s footprint in a move to “zero carbon and zero waste.” “[The plaintiff] would not have purchased the products if she had known that they were not sustainable, not made from sustainable materials and not environmentally friendly,” the suit read. Ellis, who is asking the lawsuit to be certified as a federal and state class action, also said that of the 2,452 products Nike lists in its sustainability collection, “only 239 products are actually made with any recycled materials."