[salawat]

No. No it isn't a win. We need to grow beyond this stupid anachronistic concept that "just because you speak to a Third Party" there is no expectation of privacy. Humanity works as a result of third-party communication, and I extremely infrequently see Governments cracking open their operational notes to the Public except at great cost, delay, and the ultimate possibility of refusal. In point of fact, the Government taxes us to build out it's capability to not have to do so, but doesn't do a damn thing to ensure anyone else has the same capability.

Until "Good of the goose, good of the gander" is honored in good faith, this is a strict, hypocritical loss.

[tyzoid]

It doesn't even need to be a third party. Documents you make for yourself but never send to a third party could still be seized in a criminal context or subject to discovery in a civil one.

Attorney-client privilege is a special carve out because the courts have recognized that clients need to be open and honest with their attorneys to get proper counsel and representation.

This ruling is the court declining to extend that special carve out to non-lawyer AI tooling, and keeping the status quo of contemporaneous documents made by someone discoverable, whether or not shared with a third party. The judge draws from the TOS as an admonishment, effectively saying (my words, not the judge) the TOS should have put you on notice that you have no expectation this data is confidential.