What happened
Deadline reports that Spyder Games and Speedy Simulator Gaming sued Mementum Lab after a dispute over the use of the AI-generated character Tung Tung Sahur in the Roblox game Steal A Brainrot. Mementum, which says it licensed rights from the character’s Indonesian creator, has filed trademark counterclaims and a motion to dismiss. A hearing is scheduled for September 23 before Judge Noël Wise.
Deadline reports that the dispute began after France-based Mementum Lab contacted Do Big Studios, which is owned by Spyder Games, in mid-2025. Mementum objected to Tung Tung Sahur appearing in Steal A Brainrot, a Roblox game. According to the report, Mementum had licensed the character from Indonesian creator Noxa, also identified as Fernanda Bagas Indrastata, and had already entered licensing arrangements with Epic Games for use in Fortnite. Mementum sought a similar agreement for the Roblox game, but negotiations stalled. Deadline says Roblox temporarily removed Tung Tung Sahur before the dispute escalated into litigation.
Deadline reports that Spyder Games and Speedy Simulator Gaming filed suit after the licensing conflict. Lawyers for the Steal A Brainrot creators filed an initial complaint on November 26, 2025, followed by an amended complaint on July 30, 2026. The amended complaint argues that Mementum’s claimed rights do not exist because copyright protection requires human authorship and AI-generated material does not qualify. Those assertions are allegations in the litigation, as described by Deadline, rather than findings by the court.
Mementum responded with trademark infringement counterclaims, also filed on July 30 according to Deadline. On August 19, its lawyers filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion argues that one of the plaintiffs’ declaratory-relief claims duplicates or mirrors Mementum’s counterclaims concerning ownership of enforceable trademark rights in the Tung Tung Sahur name and image marks. Deadline identifies Steven Stein of Greenberg Glusker as Mementum’s outside counsel and Aaron Moss of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp as counsel for the Steal A Brainrot creators. The report’s account has not been independently confirmed against the court docket here.
Source details: deadline.com ↗
Why it matters
The case could test how U.S. courts treat commercial rights in AI-assisted or AI-generated characters. Deadline reports that the parties disagree over whether the character and related marks can be protected, and how much human authorship is required. The outcome could affect studios, game makers, streaming services and online creators that use or license AI-generated media.
Deadline frames the lawsuit as an early test of a recurring commercial problem: whether a company can claim control over a character or other work created with AI assistance, and whether others can use that material without permission. The report says the U.S. Copyright Office has acknowledged that some AI-generated content may be protected, while assessing protection on a case-by-case basis. The article does not provide the relevant Copyright Office decision or a judicial ruling resolving this dispute, so the legal status remains unsettled in this account.
The parties’ positions address different but overlapping forms of intellectual-property protection. The plaintiffs, as described by Deadline, challenge Mementum’s copyright position by arguing that fully AI-generated material lacks the human authorship required for copyright. Mementum’s counterclaims concern trademarks associated with the character’s name and image. Those issues are not identical: a decision about copyright does not automatically resolve trademark questions. Deadline reports the arguments, but the source does not establish how much human creative input went into Tung Tung Sahur, what rights Noxa transferred, or whether Mementum obtained enforceable U.S. registrations.
The practical stakes extend beyond this particular Roblox dispute because AI-generated characters circulate across games, social platforms and entertainment properties. Deadline reports that the case could matter to studios, streamers, YouTube creators and other businesses that build revenue around digital characters. A ruling could clarify whether licensing markets can function around AI-generated works, or whether some widely shared characters remain difficult to control. That broader effect is possible rather than certain: the source supplies no prediction from the judge, no damages estimate and no evidence that the case will establish a rule binding beyond the parties.
What to watch next
The immediate question is how Judge Wise handles the competing motions and Mementum’s jurisdictional arguments. Deadline reports that a trial is scheduled for November 29, 2027, but that schedule and the case itself could change after the September hearing. The report does not independently establish the parties’ underlying rights, the extent of human contribution to the character, or whether any U.S. copyright or trademark registrations are valid.
The September 23 hearing before Judge Noël Wise is the next concrete milestone. Deadline reports that both sides will argue that some or all of the opposing claims should be dismissed. Mementum’s motion raises jurisdictional issues, while the plaintiffs’ claims challenge the existence and enforceability of Mementum’s asserted rights. The hearing could narrow the claims, allow them to proceed, or send the case in another direction. The source does not report the court’s eventual ruling.
The reported trial date, November 29, 2027, should be treated as provisional. Deadline says the hearing’s outcome could determine whether the case moves toward trial, and procedural rulings may alter the schedule or the issues that remain. If the case proceeds, important evidence would likely include the character’s creation history, the licensing agreement with Noxa, communications between the companies, the character’s use in Roblox and Fortnite, and any copyright or trademark filings. Deadline does not provide those documents in full.
The central unresolved question is how a court will separate AI-generated elements from human-authored expression and from trademark rights attached to a name or character image. Readers should watch for a ruling on human authorship, the scope of any licensed rights, and whether the court treats Mementum’s counterclaims as properly distinct from the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief. Nothing in the source confirms that the court will declare Tung Tung Sahur free for anyone to use, validate Mementum’s claims, or create a general rule for all AI-generated characters.
