DeviantArt Seeks to Disqualify Law Firm in Evox Suit
The art platform claims a conflict of interest exists due to the firm's history of advising its parent company, Wix.com.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should law firms be barred from suing former clients regardless of how long ago they worked?
DeviantArt has formally asked a federal judge to disqualify the law firm Crowell & Moring from representing Evox in an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit. The company alleges that the firm maintains a substantive conflict of interest stemming from prior advisory work performed for Wix.com.
Why it matters
The dispute centers on whether a cessation of active billing ends a formal attorney-client relationship. DeviantArt argues that the law firm acquired confidential information during its tenure as an advisor, which now poses a conflict in this litigation.
Crowell & Moring employs nearly 700 lawyers and is currently involved in the case numbered 2:26-cv-07201-CAS-RAO. The firm asserts that it has not performed active work for Wix.com since 2024.
The players
DeviantArt
Founded in 2000, this platform allows artists to share and showcase their work.
Crowell & Moring
This is a large law firm headquartered in Washington, DC, that provides legal and advisory services.
Wix.com
This company provides a cloud-based web development platform and serves as the parent entity of DeviantArt.
Evox
This is the plaintiff that initiated the current copyright infringement litigation against various AI-related companies.
The details
In the filing, DeviantArt contends that the law firm should be removed from the case because it had access to material confidential information while advising Wix.com and its subsidiaries. The firm maintains that its previous advisory relationship concluded years ago, but the court must now determine if that history precludes them from representing Evox against DeviantArt.
Timeline
Crowell & Moring provided advisory services to Wix.com and its subsidiaries from 2022 to 2026.
Evox initiated the copyright infringement lawsuit against DeviantArt in July 2026.
The firm's general counsel addressed conflict allegations in a letter sent in September 2026.
DeviantArt submitted its motion to disqualify the firm on October 14, 2026.
The Tech Race
Legal challenges involving AI and intellectual property have sparked an arms race in litigation strategies between platforms and plaintiffs. The court's ruling on this motion will hinge on the established application of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding attorney disqualification in cases of prior representation.
This case highlights the growing complexity and legal scrutiny surrounding copyright claims involving AI-generated imagery and digital art. For users and creators, the outcome of these procedural disputes will help shape the standards for how tech platforms navigate legal liability in the future.
The takeaway
The motion illustrates how historical corporate relationships can create significant roadblocks in modern copyright litigation. Parties in similar sectors may need to be increasingly cautious about which law firms they retain to ensure no past conflicts can jeopardize their defense.
Further reading
For broader trends in this field, see the Artificial Intelligence section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Reuters.
Live Poll
Should law firms be barred from suing former clients regardless of how long ago they worked?
