Yinnv Liu v. Monthly: Date Argued: February 20th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2074

Case Summary:In the case of Yinnv Liu v. Monthly (Docket No. 25-2074), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 20, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:Fact SummaryThe litigation is a complex commercial and intellectual property dispute involving Yinnv Liu (the plaintiff/appellant) and the defendant company Monthly (associated with Monthly.com), along with several other entities including Joybuy.The core factual conflict centers on a breach of contract and copyright infringement claim related to online educational content and digital assets. Monthly operates a platform that hosts creative classes and "learning experiences" taught by high-profile instructors.A primary issue in the record involves the ownership and distribution rights of specific instructional materials. The plaintiff alleges that Monthly and its partner entities, such as Joybuy, exceeded the scope of their licensing agreements by sub-licensing or distributing her proprietary content across international markets without proper authorization or compensation.The factual background includes a dispute over digital rights management (DRM) and the "terms of service" that govern how independent creators interact with the Monthly platform. Monthly contends that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a broad "Master Services Agreement" that granted the company extensive rights to adapt and monetize the content in exchange for a percentage of subscription revenue.In early 2025, a district court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plain language of the electronic contracts signed by the plaintiff shielded the companies from the majority of the claims regarding unauthorized international distribution.The current appeal, docketed as 25-2074, challenges that interpretation. The appellant argues that the contracts were unconscionable adhesion contracts—meaning they were presented on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis with grossly one-sided terms that a reasonable creator would not have knowingly accepted.The appellate record also scrutinizes whether the defendants provided an accurate accounting of the revenues generated from the plaintiff's specific content modules, a factual point that underpins the plaintiff’s claim for damages.During the oral arguments on February 20, 2026, the Seventh Circuit panel focused on the "clickwrap" nature of the agreement and whether the specific clauses allowing for "global sub-licensing" were sufficiently conspicuous to be enforceable under Illinois and federal law.