$1.5 billion settlement proposed in landmark AI copyright infringement case

Announcement: New updates to A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI are now live! If you already have the guide, you can log in for immediate access to the updates, including new AI tools for lawyers, updated AI case overviews and summaries, practical tips for reducing AI risk, and more. If you haven’t purchased the guide yet, now is a great time to get access. You can grab your copy of the guide here. 

Issue 43 

More than 40 copyright infringement cases have been filed against AI companies in U.S. courts over the past two years by authors, publishers, artists, musicians, entertainment companies, and other copyright holders. Last week, the author plaintiffs in one of these cases, Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, announced a landmark proposed class action settlement of at least $1.5 billion to be paid by Anthropic PBC, the maker of the Claude large language models.[i]  

The proposed settlement announcement followed the Hon. William Alsup’s June 2025 order on fair use, issued in relation to Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment.[ii] The order on fair use identified and analyzed three distinct uses of the authors' copyrighted works by Anthropic to determine whether any of the uses qualified as fair uses under the Copyright Act, finding:   

1. Anthropic’s use of the works to train its AI models constituted a fair use under the Copyright Act; 
2. Anthropic’s digitization of books that it purchased in print form was a fair use because Anthropic replaced the print copies it purchased for its central library with digital copies, without adding new copies of the works, redistributing the existing copies, or creating new works; and 
3. It was not a fair use for Anthropic to use pirated copies of copyrighted works to create a permanent and general-purpose library.[iii]  

For more background on this lawsuit and the Hon. William Alsup’s order on fair use, you can read my previous coverage here.  

The Proposed $1.5 Billion Settlement 

The motion for preliminary approval of class settlement outlined the principal settlement terms as follows:

• Anthropic to pay the class at least $1.5 billion dollars, estimated at $3,000 per class work,
• Anthropic to destroy the LibGen and PiLiMi datasets following the expiration of any litigation preservation orders or other court orders, and
• Anthropic to receive a past release for conduct up to August 25, 2025.[iv]

If approved, the proposed settlement will be the largest publicly recorded copyright class action settlement or final litigated judgment in history.[v] The motion asserts that the proposed settlement would provide meaningful compensation for each work in the class, and set a precedent for AI companies paying for the use of copyrighted works from pirated websites.[vi]  

However, approval of the settlement remains pending. In advance of a September 8, 2025 hearing in the matter, the Hon. William Alsup wrote, 

But the district judge is disappointed that counsel have left important questions to be answered in the future, including respecting the Works List, the Class List, the Claim Form, and, particularly for works with multiple claimants, the processes for notification (for opt-out, so-called re-inclusion, and claims, whether a given choice is exercised by one, some, or all coclaimants), allocation, and dispute resolution.[vii]

Following the September 8^th hearing, a minute entry on the case docket indicated that preliminary approval of the proposed settlement was postponed pending further clarifying information, with a motion hearing set for September 25, 2025.[viii]  

The Landscape of AI Cases and Your Clients 

While the AI copyright infringement lawsuits receive the majority of news coverage, AI-related cases have been filed in many practice areas, with subjects including discrimination, defamation, healthcare, privacy, deepfakes, negligence and wrongful death, antitrust, education, civil rights, and more.  

If you would like a resource that will give you an overview of the current landscape of AI cases so that you can better serve your clients, as well as guide you step by step through evaluating and implementing AI tools, and provide you with a curated directory of over 200 AI tools developed for lawyers, please take a look at A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI. You can get instant access to the guide here.    

Thanks for being here.   

Jennifer Ballard
Good Journey Consulting  

P.S. If you know a lawyer who is interested in enhancing their AI competency and strategy, please consider forwarding this issue of the newsletter to them. Thank you. If you are new to this newsletter, welcome! If you are interested in receiving AI news and analysis for lawyers every other week, you can sign up to have this newsletter delivered to your inbox here.     

[i] Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement at 1, Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2024); Complaint at 1, Bartz. 

[ii] Order on Fair Use, Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2024).  

[iii] Id. at 1, 9. 

[iv] Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement at 1, Bartz. 

[v] Id.  

[vi] Id. 

[vii] Order re Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement at 1, Bartz. 

[viii] Minute entry for proceedings at docket entry #371, Bartz.