We have previously reported on the Jobiak case which raises the interesting issue of whether an AI-scraped job database is subject to copyright protection and is infringed. We were hoping that the court would make substantive rulings on some of the AI issues. Instead, the court has granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend. So perhaps we will get some substantive rulings after an amended complaint is filed.

As a refresher, Plaintiff Jobiak, LLC (“Jobiak”) is an AI-based recruitment platform and company “that offers a unique service of quickly and directly publishing job postings on Google.” Jobiak uses machine learning technology to offer an automated database for job postings. Jobiak’s proprietary technology allows it to search online jobs and automate the conversion and optimization of job descriptions to meet Google’s schema requirements. Jobiak has intellectual property rights in its automated database, entitled “ALL JOBS by Jobiak.” Specifically, Jobiak holds a copyright registration for “ALL JOBS by Jobiak,” and published updates from 9/1/2022 to 11/30/2022.

Defendant Botmakers LLC (“Botmakers”) operates a similar line of business as Jobiak through its website Tarta.Ai (https://tarta.ai). In January 2023, Jobiak learned that Botmakers was using Jobiak’s protected database for commercial purposes without Jobiak’s permission. Jobiak believes that Botmakers has been “scraping” the data from Jobiak’s website and using the information on its website. Botmaker’s infringement is clear by its use of a layout similar to Jobiak’s, as well as the use of the “dummy” search key title words at the end of each job description, which have no relation to the position listed.

Jobiak filed its Complaint on October 12, 2023. Jobiak asserted the following five causes of action against Botmakers in its Complaint:

1. Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501;
2. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. (“CFAA”);
3. California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act – Penal Code § 502 et seq. (“CDAFA”);
4. Unfair Competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”); and
5. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) – 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.

Botmakers argues that the Court should dismiss the action because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Botmakers. Botmakers argues that even if personal jurisdiction is found, the Court should still dismiss Jobiak’s Complaint because Jobiak fails to state its causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that the Complaint has not sufficiently pleaded personal jurisdiction over Botmakers. The Court therefore declined to reach the issues raised under Rule 12(b)(6).

Stay tuned for further updates.