Largely irrelevant - like I said, moral rights exist in civil law countries, so these things will be pursued on a case by case basis rather than by existing precedent. They tend to deal with (quoting WP here) "The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[3] Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play." Another condition often applied is straight up forbidding the modification of a copyrighted work, regardless of any other circumstances.

In this case, you can reasonably consider that the strong stance that a good chunk of artists have taken about AI art, that using their work in these models is deliberately altering/distorting the work (Since training these models involves serializing the art down to patterns that can be replicated and iterated on) in a way that is damaging to their reputation.

As for whether or not relief has been granted, do keep in mind that requiring relief for a lawsuit is largely a US only thing. The court systems of other countries tend to lean more towards stop orders rather than immediately pulling out the financial compensation card. That's also the context in which moral rights exist - they are intended to be a stop order, not intended to be something you can financially gain from having it be violated (which is why they exist separate from economic rights, which are well... typical copyright stuff).

Do keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, US or otherwise.