A third European court decision on the general purpose text-and-data-mining exception has now been published, according to Wolters Kluwer's legal reporting. That makes three. For an exception that underpins much of the continent's AI training debate, the case count remains strikingly low.

The announcement itself is thin on detail. The headline confirms the arrival of a third ruling; it does not name the court, the member state, the parties, or the docket. This report reflects what the source discloses. Everything beyond it is context, clearly labelled.

Why does the TDM exception matter?

The general purpose TDM exception sits in Article 4 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Market Copyright Directive. Developers of AI models invoke it to justify copying lawfully accessible works for training. Rightsholders may opt out, typically through machine-readable reservations.

Three court decisions in roughly five years. That is the entire European jurisprudence on a provision now central to litigation over generative AI. Practitioners should treat every new ruling as load-bearing.

What do we know — and not know?

Known: a third decision exists and concerns the general purpose TDM exception. Unknown: almost everything a litigator would want.

• Which national court decided it, and when
• Whether the defendant was an AI developer or a research entity
• Whether the court tested the opt-out mechanics or the lawful-access condition
• Whether the ruling is appealable, and at what stage

Wolters Kluwer's headline promises a decision. It withholds the decision's substance. Readers should expect the full analysis behind the publisher's paywall.

What does a third ruling change for practitioners?

Not much, yet, and that is the honest answer. A third data point enriches a sparse line of authority. It does not settle the contested questions: how explicit an opt-out must be, who bears the burden of checking reservations, and whether commercial AI training fits the exception at all.

For firms advising AI developers, each ruling narrows the range of defensible positions by a fraction. For rightsholders, each ruling tests whether opt-outs carry real enforcement weight. One decision moves doctrine slowly. Three begin to form a pattern.

In plain words: the scoreboard now reads three, but the game's rules remain largely unwritten.

By Priya Raman, Global Law Wire