🔍 Read the full analysis: What We Know About The Anthropic Pirated Books Allegations on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A federal judge ruled in June 2025 that Anthropic’s use of books to train Claude was fair use but that downloading millions of pirated book copies to keep was not. Anthropic later agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement covering about 500,000 registered books; new lawsuits filed in 2026 have not been decided.
Anthropic’s book-piracy dispute has returned to public attention as authors pursue new lawsuits, but the central court ruling was issued in June 2025, not May 2026. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that training Claude on books was fair use, while ruling that Anthropic’s downloading of more than seven million pirated book copies for a permanent library was not; the later claims have not yet been decided.
The ruling came in Bartz v. Anthropic, a case filed by three authors in August 2024. In a summary-judgment order dated June 23, 2025, Alsup distinguished between how books were obtained and how they were used. He found that Anthropic’s training on books was transformative and protected as fair use. He also found that the company’s purchase of used print books, followed by scanning them, was fair use.
The judge treated the pirated collections differently. His order described 196,640 books from Books3, at least five million copies from Library Genesis and at least two million from the Pirate Library Mirror. He concluded that downloading and retaining the pirated copies was not fair use. The order accepted the authors’ account of the relevant facts for that pretrial decision; a jury had been expected to consider remaining issues, including damages, but the case settled before trial.
Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement, finally approved in July 2026, covering owners of roughly 500,000 registered books. That works out to about $3,000 per book before fees. The settlement requires destruction of the downloaded LibGen and PiLiMi books and copies, subject to legal-hold requirements. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and represented to the settlement court that neither dataset, nor portions of them, were in the training corpus of any commercially released model. The settlement releases specified past claims through August 25, 2025; it does not release claims about Claude’s outputs.
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
The Ruling Separates Training From Piracy
The dispute matters because it draws a line between copyrighted material used to train an AI model and the way a company obtains and stores that material. The 2025 decision did not find that training Claude on books was unlawful. It did find that downloading pirated copies to build a permanent library was not justified by the fair-use defense in that case. Treating those findings as one broad ruling that “AI training was illegal” misstates the court’s decision.
The settlement also puts a substantial dollar figure on the costs of resolving claims over a large collection of copyrighted books. It does not set a general licence for AI developers to use books, nor does it settle every copyright question involving model training or generated content. For authors, publishers and AI companies, the distinction may shape litigation strategy and future negotiations over access to training materials.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Pro 16.2-inch with M5 Pro, 18-core CPU, 20-core GPU, 48GB Memory, 1TB SSD, Wi-Fi 7, Space Black
LG 24G414B-B 24-Inch UltraGear Full HD IPS Gaming Monitor
Apple MacBook Pro 14‑inch (2021) with M1 Pro, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD – Space Gray
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 2025 Case Reached Settlement
The Stanford Daily reported that books by Stanford-affiliated writers, including Tobias Wolff, Abraham Verghese, Chang-rae Lee, Daniel Mason, Hayagreeva Rao and Myra Strober, were among the pirated copies. The paper said ten of Wolff’s works were affected and quoted him describing uncompensated use of his work as “a form of slave labor.” Those details are the newspaper’s reporting; the account provided here has not independently checked the book list against the settlement database.
There are also differences between the newspaper’s description and the court timeline. The relevant ruling was the June 2025 order in Bartz, not a May 2026 ruling. New cases were filed in May 2026 by authors who opted out of the settlement. Chang-rae Lee is identified in one of those suits, Kwon et al. v. Anthropic. The available court records cited in the source do not list Wolff among plaintiffs in the five related cases as of August 2026, though he could be involved in another action or a later amendment.
“Using his work without pay “is a form of slave labor.””
— Tobias Wolff, as quoted by The Stanford Daily
No judge has ruled on the May 2026 lawsuits described in the source material. A hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss is set for December 17, 2026. The allegations in those cases must not be treated as findings, and the scope or outcome of any claims could change as the litigation proceeds.
Questions also remain about the relationship between the pirated collections and models used commercially. The 2025 order addressed copying and training in the Bartz case, while Anthropic’s settlement representation says LibGen and PiLiMi data were not part of the training corpus of commercially released models. The settlement ended the covered claims without a jury trial resolving all factual and damages questions. The precise list of affected books and the status of individual authors’ claims also require checking against court records and settlement records.
December Hearing Is the Next Milestone
The next stated court milestone is the December 17, 2026 hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the new cases. The court’s response could determine which claims proceed, though it would not necessarily resolve the underlying disputes. Readers should distinguish any future procedural ruling from a decision on whether the allegations are true.
The settlement’s payment schedule also extends beyond the initial approval: the source material lists instalments through September 27, 2027. Authors seeking payment should refer to the settlement’s official notices and records for eligibility and deadlines. Further reporting should track the new cases, any amendments to their plaintiff lists and any court findings, rather than treating the 2025 ruling as a decision on claims filed later.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that Anthropic illegally trained Claude on books?
No. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup found that training on books was fair use in the Bartz case. He separately ruled that downloading pirated copies to keep in a permanent library was not fair use.
What does the $1.5 billion settlement cover?
It covers claims for owners of roughly 500,000 registered books that Anthropic downloaded from LibGen or PiLiMi, at about $3,000 per book before fees. Its release covers specified past conduct through August 25, 2025, and does not release claims about Claude’s outputs.
Have the lawsuits filed in 2026 been decided?
No ruling is reported. The cases were filed by authors who opted out of the settlement. A hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss is set for December 17, 2026.
What does Anthropic say about the pirated datasets?
Anthropic denies wrongdoing and represented to the settlement court that LibGen and PiLiMi, including portions of those datasets, were not in the training corpus of any commercially released model. That is the company’s position, not a separate verdict on the new cases.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
