What if a court orders a model trained on pirated data deleted?
A model-deletion injunction is the tail case — it threatens a flagship product's existence, so it bites harder than a damages award: NVDA and the semi complex sell as the buildout's demand visibility shortens. Analogue is the DeepSeek demand-assumption shock for the violence of the AI-bellwether move. Forward angle: an injunction sets re-training precedent, raising the option value of 'clean-data' compute — transient incremental GPU demand against the headline negative.
Every number ships with its receipt — the odds, the range, the precedents, and a public grade at Reality Check. The statistical machinery that produces it is proprietary.
The butterfly cascade
How this trigger trickles across markets, left → right — the root shock, its first‑order moves, then the ripple effects. Drag any node; tap a market for its real price history.
Resolution timeline — how this probability is moving
Our model's odds (electric blue) over time vs the market's (Polymarket, amber), from the past toward the 1–3 years horizon. Each dot is a real macro event that nudged the probability — green pushed it up, red pushed it down. Tap a dot for the source. Loading the probability audit trail…
What it would mean
If this plays out, it is a risk-off shock. A court orders deletion of a model trained on infringing data, threatening flagship-product viability. The trigger decomposes into signed root‑shocks — AI capex ▼ · Risk appetite ▼ — which propagate through our causal graph to the markets below.