Credit: Springshot A proposed sale of Spirit Airlines data to Google has drawn an objection from aviation software company Springshot, which says some of the assets may not be Spirit’s to sell. Google won the bankruptcy auction with a $10 million bid for a vast archive. It includes roughly 100 million emails, 500 million Microsoft Teams messages and collaboration records, plus spreadsheets, code and operational data. Springshot says that collection could also contain proprietary records generated by its software.
That is material CEO Doug Kreuzkamp argues could help a competitor build AI to manage airport operations. Springshot supplied this account, and it has filed an objection in the bankruptcy proceedings. Springshot wants a court-run forensic review to separate its intellectual property from Spirit’s business records before any transfer. Its objection raises a question that extends beyond aviation.
When software turns a customer’s activity into a dataset useful for training AI, who owns the result? From aircraft turnarounds to AI training data Springshot says it has developed its platform over 15 years and deployed it across more than 475 airports globally. It connects frontline workers, operational systems and real-time information to coordinate tasks such as preparing aircraft for departure and organizing ground services. That work produces a detailed record of what happened: the conditions teams faced, the decisions they made, the tasks they completed and the results.
Kreuzkamp argues that these records are more than a digitized account of Spirit’s business. He says Springshot generates them by combining workers’ interactions with its software, signals from other systems and operational requirements into structured, flight-specific datasets. “If the dataset includes Springshot’s proprietary operational data and trade secrets, it could provide a shortcut to developing AI capable of orchestrating airport operations,” Kreuzkamp said in written answers. Spirit’s records or Springshot’s outputs? Google has publicly acknowledged its interest in the data for its products and AI models.
It has also said a third party will remove personally identifiable information before delivery. It says it will not receive personal information from the dataset. Those assurances address privacy. Springshot’s objection concerns who can authorize the transfer in the first place.
Kreuzkamp draws a distinction between information Spirit supplied and information Springshot’s software generated. Spirit’s emails, chats and financial spreadsheets belong to the airline, he said. But Springshot’s court objection cites contract language assigning the software company rights to “any data or information generated by the Service or Software.” “The distinction is between the information Spirit supplied and the proprietary outputs our platform generated,” Kreuzkamp said. Whether particular material in the proposed sale falls within Springshot’s ownership claim remains disputed.
The company wants the court to explicitly exclude its intellectual property from the transaction. It wants the court to prevent transfers or uses that violate its software agreement. Kreuzkamp has also explained why Springshot missed the original objection deadline. He told the Miami Herald that “we had no reason to believe that Spirit would sell property that wasn’t theirs.” Other objections, and a higher offer Springshot is not alone in objecting.
International Aero Engines LLC and IAE International Aero Engines AG filed separate challenges on similar grounds. They argue that their proprietary information must be excluded, and cite confidentiality agreements with Spirit. Their filing incorporates applicable arguments from Springshot’s objection. The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA has separately challenged the treatment of employee data.
Spirit has said it would de-identify the records. But the union argues that links preserved across datasets could allow information about individuals or small groups to be reconstructed. A competing buyer has offered to address those concerns. AI training-data company micro1 submitted a $12.5 million proposal after the auction.
It said it would try to address the issues raised by the union and Springshot. Alongside restrictions on sensitive employment data, it pledged not to develop an airline operations product or license the operational dataset for that purpose. That proposal would limit uses of the data without necessarily removing the material Springshot claims. Kreuzkamp told Ars Technica that he welcomed the acknowledgment of its concerns but still wanted Springshot’s property excluded.
Drawing the line before data changes hands The sale still requires court approval. The hearing has been rescheduled several times, and is now slated for September 30. Springshot is also reviewing its own practices. Kreuzkamp says the company is looking at clearer contractual language and technical safeguards for identifying, sharing and storing its proprietary outputs in customer systems.
The practical problem is that those outputs can remain inside a customer’s systems even when a vendor claims ownership. Springshot wants that boundary established before the records become someone else’s AI training data. Contributed article. Not produced by the TNW newsroom and does not reflect the editorial stance of TNW.
Leave a Reply