🔍 Read the full analysis: The Book Piracy Allegations Against Anthropic And Their Possible Stakes on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A federal judge ruled in June 2025 that Anthropic’s use of books to train Claude was fair use, while finding that downloading millions of pirated books to create a permanent library was not. Anthropic later agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement over the downloads; new lawsuits by authors who opted out are pending, with a dismissal hearing set for December 17, 2026.
Anthropic’s book-piracy dispute has produced a $1.5 billion settlement and fresh lawsuits from authors who opted out, but no court has ruled on those newer claims. The central distinction in the earlier case is that a federal judge found training Claude on books to be fair use, while ruling that Anthropic’s downloading of more than seven million pirated book copies to build a permanent library was not.
In a June 23, 2025 order in Bartz v. Anthropic, U.S. District Judge William Alsup distinguished between using books to train a model and acquiring pirated copies. He found that training Claude on books was transformative and fair use, and also found that Anthropic’s purchase and scanning of millions of used print books was fair use. But he ruled against the company’s retention of pirated copies from online collections, including Library Genesis and the Pirate Library Mirror. The order described more than seven million copies across the sources at issue.
The court’s ruling on the pirated books was made at summary judgment, before a trial on remaining issues such as damages. Anthropic later settled the class action for $1.5 billion, with payments for eligible claims involving roughly 500,000 registered books, at about $3,000 per book before fees. The settlement was finally approved in July 2026 and requires destruction of the downloaded LibGen and PiLiMi books and their copies, subject to legal-hold obligations.
Authors who opted out have filed separate cases, including a suit naming novelist Chang-rae Lee as a plaintiff, according to the source account. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing. Its lawyers have said the company will not settle “above the Bartz claim value,” and one author accepted $2,000 plus costs. A hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the newer claims is scheduled for December 17, 2026; the claims have not yet been decided.
From download to IPO
Five years, one ruling, no trial
The piracy happened in 2021 and 2022. The only ruling came in 2025. The new lawsuits are years away from a verdict.
- Jun 2021 · Jul 2022DownloadsAt least 5 million copies from LibGen (2021), at least 2 million from PiLiMi (2022); 196,640 from Books3 earlier.
- Aug 2024Bartz v. Anthropic filedThree authors sue Anthropic, on behalf of a class of book owners.
- 23 Jun 2025Judge Alsup's orderTraining on books: fair use. Scanning bought books: fair use. Pirated library copies: not fair use, to trial.
- Sep 2025$1.5 billion settlementNo trial. Anthropic denies wrongdoing; release covers conduct up to 25 Aug 2025 only.
- 13 + 15 May 2026Opt-out suitsCruz (28 plaintiffs) and Kwon (incl. Chang-rae Lee) join Cambronne and two publisher suits.
- Jul 2026Final approvalSettlement approved. Anthropic: no opt-out deal "above the Bartz claim value".
- 24 Sep 2026Motion to dismissAnthropic: claims too late, no infringing output shown, many works already released.
- 26–27 Oct 2026NowS-1 and the headlineIPO filing cites Bartz as a risk; The Stanford Daily names Stanford authors.
- 17 Dec 2026ScheduledHearingCourt hears the motion to dismiss.
- May 2027 · Jan 2028ScheduledDiscovery, then trial settingFact discovery closes 13 May 2027; trial-setting conference 11 Jan 2028.
Sources: Bartz v. Anthropic, order of 23 June 2025; settlement FAQ; joint case statement, 27 Aug 2026; Anthropic letter, 27 Jul 2026; case management order, 14 Sep 2026; Anthropic S-1, 26 Oct 2026; The Stanford Daily, 27 Oct 2026. Scheduled dates can move.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
What the Settlement Covers
The dispute matters to authors and AI developers because it separates two questions that are often blended together: whether copyrighted books can be used to train a model, and whether a company can obtain and store pirated copies of those books. The 2025 ruling supported Anthropic on the training question in that case, but not on the acquisition and retention of the pirated library.
The settlement provides compensation to eligible rights holders for the covered past conduct, but it does not give Anthropic a general licence to use books. According to the settlement terms summarized in the source material, it releases claims only for past conduct through August 25, 2025; claims concerning Claude’s outputs are expressly not released. The separate opt-out cases could test the scope of the earlier decision and settlement, though their outcome is unknown.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-Inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Bartz to New Lawsuits
Bartz v. Anthropic was brought by three authors in August 2024. In June 2025, Judge Alsup said model training on books could qualify as fair use, describing it as an effort “to turn a hard corner and create something different.” He separately found that downloading pirated copies for a permanent library was not fair use, and said buying a copy later would not erase liability for the earlier copying.
The case did not end with a jury verdict on damages. Anthropic settled, and the settlement applies to eligible claims involving books in the covered pirated collections. Authors who opted out are pursuing separate claims. The source material also reports a Stanford Daily story naming several Stanford-affiliated writers and saying ten Tobias Wolff works were affected. That list has not been independently checked against the settlement database in the supplied material, so it should be treated as the newspaper’s reporting rather than a verified court finding.
Coverage has also conflated the old ruling with the newer suits. The ruling finding the downloads unlawful dates to June 2025 and arose in Bartz; it was not a May 2026 decision in the new cases. The distinction matters because the opt-out authors’ allegations remain pending.
“The company represented that neither the LibGen or PiLiMi datasets, nor any portions of those datasets, were in the training corpus of any of its commercially released large language models.”
— Anthropic, as described in the settlement materials
Open Questions in the Opt-Out Cases
No judge has yet ruled on the merits of the new opt-out lawsuits. The December hearing concerns Anthropic’s motion to dismiss; the supplied information does not establish how the court will rule or whether the cases will proceed to trial. It is also unclear what evidence the parties will present about the specific books, copying, and alleged harms in those cases.
There is a separate distinction in the record over whether pirated collections were used in training. The 2025 order described portions of the collections as used to train some models, while Anthropic’s settlement representation said neither the datasets nor portions of them were in the training corpus of any commercially released model. The supplied material does not resolve that difference in wording or establish which particular versions or stages of model development are covered by each statement.
The Stanford Daily’s reported list of affected authors and works has not been checked against the settlement database here. The source account also says it could not find Wolff among plaintiffs listed in five related cases as of August 2026; that does not establish whether he is involved in another action or a later amendment.
December Hearing and Settlement Payments
The next identified court milestone is the December 17, 2026 hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the opt-out lawsuits. Any ruling could clarify which claims may proceed, but it will not by itself settle the factual disputes or determine damages if the cases continue.
Payments under the class settlement are scheduled in instalments, including $450 million due by September 27, 2027, according to the supplied settlement summary. Eligible authors should rely on the settlement administrator and court notices for claim deadlines and payment details. Further developments will depend on the court’s decision in the new cases and on how the settlement is administered.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that Anthropic’s model training was illegal?
No. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup ruled that training Claude on books was fair use in the case before him. He separately ruled that downloading pirated copies to build a permanent library was not fair use.
What does the $1.5 billion settlement cover?
The settlement covers eligible claims concerning roughly 500,000 registered books downloaded from LibGen or PiLiMi. It addresses past conduct through August 25, 2025, according to the supplied summary; it is not a general licence to train on copyrighted books.
Have the authors who opted out won their lawsuits?
No. Their cases are pending, and the claims have not been decided. Anthropic has filed a motion to dismiss, with a hearing scheduled for December 17, 2026.
Did the settlement court find that pirated books trained released Claude models?
The supplied record contains statements that are not identical: the 2025 order described portions of pirated collections as used to train some models, while Anthropic represented in the settlement that those datasets or portions were not in the training corpus of commercially released models. The material provided does not resolve that distinction.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
