Legal Tech Founder Highlights Perceived Double Standard in Westlaw's Control Over Public Domain Documents

Legal technology entrepreneur Andrew Arruda has sparked discussion by questioning the differing public reactions to commercial control over public domain legal documents. Arruda, a prominent figure in legal tech, specifically targeted Westlaw, a major legal research provider, in a recent social media post.

"imagine what an outcry there would be if a big, bad tech business like Google tried to firewall access to public domain legal documents. Sacrilege! Techno-oligarchy! But when a dying business like Westlaw tries to do this, it’s perfectly fine, because…authors’ rights!" Arruda stated in the tweet.

Arruda, known as the co-founder and former CEO of AI legal research startup ROSS Intelligence, has advocated for increased accessibility in legal services. ROSS Intelligence, which aimed to revolutionize legal research through artificial intelligence, notably ceased operations following a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Thomson Reuters, Westlaw's parent company. This legal battle centered on claims regarding Westlaw's proprietary editorial content and its use by ROSS.

Westlaw's business model involves providing access to a vast collection of legal information, including public domain statutes and case law, enhanced with proprietary editorial content. This includes features like the Key Number System, headnotes, and summaries, over which Thomson Reuters asserts "editorial copyright." This strategy allows the company to monetize information that is, in its raw form, freely available, by offering organized and value-added research tools.

The tweet underscores a persistent tension between traditional legal publishers and innovators seeking to democratize access to legal information. While entities like the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School offer free access to primary legal materials, commercial platforms maintain their value proposition through curated and enhanced content. The debate often revolves around the extent of "authors’ rights" when public domain data is significantly repackaged.

Arruda's commentary brings to the forefront the ongoing challenge of balancing intellectual property rights with the public interest in open access to foundational legal knowledge. The discussion highlights how the perceived legitimacy of controlling public domain information can vary depending on whether the entity is a long-standing institution or a newer technology company.