Anthropic Faces Continued Legal Battles Amid Historic $1.5 Billion Copyright Settlement
Anthropic faces ongoing copyright infringement lawsuits, including new claims by music publishers, after a historic $1.5 billion settlement over illegal data acquisition for AI training.
- • U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee rejected Anthropic's motion to dismiss music publishers' copyright claims involving at least 500 songs.
- • Anthropic settled a separate copyright lawsuit for a record $1.5 billion in September 2025, impacting roughly 500,000 authors.
- • The landmark settlement addressed unauthorized downloading of copyrighted books, not the AI training itself, which a judge ruled can be fair use.
- • The ongoing litigation and settlement signal growing legal risks and market barriers for AI companies regarding copyrighted data.
Key details
Anthropic, the AI company behind the Claude chatbot, is currently embroiled in significant legal challenges relating to copyright infringement claims. Despite a landmark $1.5 billion settlement reached in September 2025, the company remains under scrutiny as new lawsuits proceed.
On October 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee rejected Anthropic's bid to dismiss parts of a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by music publishers Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO. The publishers allege that Anthropic’s AI, Claude, enabled users to reproduce lyrics from at least 500 songs, including works by Beyonce and the Rolling Stones, without permission. The court ruling permits these music publishers to continue their claims of contributory or vicarious infringement, based on allegations that Anthropic may have known about and profited from user infringements (Source ID: 89912).
This ongoing dispute follows a historic $1.5 billion settlement that Anthropic agreed to in September 2025, which is the largest payout in U.S. copyright history. This prior case arose from Anthropic's unauthorized downloading of millions of books from "shadow libraries" to train its large language models. The lawsuit targeted the illegal acquisition of copyrighted materials, not the AI training process itself. Federal Judge William Alsup ruled that AI training on copyrighted content can qualify as fair use if done lawfully, but Anthropic's data acquisition violated the law. Approximately 500,000 authors are set to receive at least $3,000 each from this settlement (Source ID: 89913).
Anthropic’s deputy general counsel, Aparna Sridhar, described the settlement as reflecting the company’s dedication to safe AI development. However, analysts caution that the financial magnitude of this case could deter smaller startups due to the significant cost of potential copyright litigation, raising broader concerns about the future of innovation and competition in the AI industry.
These developments highlight the increasing legal and ethical challenges AI firms face regarding the use of copyrighted materials in training datasets. Anthropic's experience underscores the evolving interplay between AI technology, copyright law, and creative rights as the sector rapidly advances.