Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JULY 2026

Before You Paste Your “Secret Recipe” Into ChatGPT

Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Explore more from Fennemore Craig, P.C.

AI tools like ChatGPT have become the new Swiss Army knife for business: They can draft a pitch deck, brainstorm a product name, write a sales email and pressure-test a marketing strategy.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Mario C. Vasta
Mario C. Vasta

AI tools like ChatGPT have become the new Swiss Army knife for business: They can draft a pitch deck, brainstorm a product name, write a sales email and pressure-test a marketing strategy. The temptation is obvious. If the tool can help you think faster, why not feed it the key details?

Because some “details” aren’t just information. They’re assets. And the way you handle them can determine whether the law will protect them later.

Trade secrets live and die by secrecy

Trade secret law is practical. There’s no magic stamp that makes something a trade secret. In general terms, information qualifies as a trade secret only if it (1) has economic value from not being generally known and (2) the owner takes reasonable measures to keep it secret. That “reasonable measures” concept is the pressure point for businesses using consumer AI tools.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

Treasury Issues Temporary Regulations On Trump Accounts And Contributions

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and IRS recently issued temporary regulations that provide an immediately effective framework for establishing and administering “Trump Accounts,” including broad automatic enrollment and large-scale contributions funded by governmental and charitable donors. The regulations became effective September 30, 2026, apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and expire September 30, 2029.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Article

New U.S. Tariffs Replace Expiring Section 122 Tariffs

President Trump's administration has shifted from emergency tariffs to Section 301 tariffs targeting forced labor practices, imposing 10-12.5% duties on imports from over 60 trading partners. This comprehensive analysis examines the legal framework, country-specific rates, product exemptions, and the strategic pivot from constitutionally challenged emergency measures to established trade policy enforcement mechanisms.
GlobalInternational Law
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Article

Nonprofit vs. Not-for-Profit: Why The Difference Matters

While many use the terms interchangeably, the legal and tax distinctions between nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations significantly impact operations, tax-deductibility of contributions, and IRS regulation. Understanding these differences is crucial for donors making informed giving decisions, board members fulfilling fiduciary duties, and organizations maintaining their tax-exempt status and compliance obligations.
United StatesTax
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Article

Trump Administration Rescinds Biden-Era Public Lands Protections Across The West

The Trump administration has rescinded a Biden-era Bureau of Land Management rule that elevated conservation as a formal management objective for Western public lands. The rollback removes restoration and mitigation leases, eliminates landscape-health planning requirements, and returns decision-making to traditional multiple-use frameworks, leaving future conservation efforts to site-specific permitting and review processes.
United StatesEnvironment
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.