Authors sue Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, Perplexity over copyrights - AI News Today Recency

# Authors Sue Major AI Companies Over Copyright Infringement in Landmark Legal Action

Book authors and journalists are taking aggressive legal action against some of the world's largest artificial intelligence companies, alleging widespread copyright violations in the training of large language models. In a significant development that marks the first copyright lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI, investigative reporter John Carreyrou and five other authors have filed suit against Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity AI, claiming these companies unlawfully used their copyrighted works to train their AI systems without permission.[1][2]

The lawsuit represents a strategic shift in how authors are pursuing copyright claims against AI developers, with plaintiffs deliberately avoiding class-action status to preserve their right to seek individualized statutory damages that could reach up to $150,000 per work per defendant.[1]

The Carreyrou Case: A New Legal Strategy

Investigative reporter John Carreyrou, best known for exposing the Theranos fraud scandal, has joined forces with five other authors—Lisa Barretta, Philip Shishkin, Jane Adams, Matthew Sacks, and Michael Kochin—to challenge the AI industry's use of their intellectual property.[1][2] The lawsuit was filed on December 22, 2025, and represents a deliberate departure from class-action litigation that has characterized previous author-led copyright suits against AI companies.

The plaintiffs explicitly rejected the class-action approach, stating in their complaint that "LLM companies should not be able to so easily extinguish thousands upon thousands of high-value claims at bargain-basement rates."[2] This strategy allows each author to pursue individualized statutory damages determined by a jury, potentially maximizing their recovery compared to class-action settlements that have historically resulted in minimal payouts.[1]

The complaint alleges direct copyright infringement, focusing on the unauthorized use of copyrighted books in training AI models. This case is particularly notable as the first copyright lawsuit to name xAI as a defendant, adding Elon Musk's AI venture to an increasingly crowded docket of copyright litigation against major tech companies.[1][2]

The Broader Copyright Crisis in AI Development

The Carreyrou lawsuit arrives amid an unprecedented wave of copyright litigation against AI companies throughout 2025. Major content creators—from film studios like Disney and Warner Bros. to news organizations including the New York Times and Chicago Tribune—have pursued legal action against AI developers.[2] Some cases have resulted in settlements, such as Disney's licensing deal with OpenAI, while others remain contentious.

The most significant settlement to date involves Anthropic, which agreed to pay $1.5 billion to a class of approximately 500,000 authors for copyright infringement claims.[3] However, even this substantial settlement has drawn criticism from rights holders, who argue that class members will receive only a fraction of the statutory damages available under copyright law.[2] Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California initially rejected the settlement, citing insufficient detail about the claims process and Anthropic's ongoing legal liability, though the company has since worked to address these concerns.[3]

The central dispute in these cases hinges on whether AI companies' use of copyrighted material for training purposes constitutes "fair use" under copyright law. While courts have found that some uses—such as Anthropic's use of purchased books—may qualify as fair use, the legality of using pirated materials remains contested.[3]

AI Companies' Defense and Industry Response

The defendants in the Carreyrou case have offered varying responses to copyright allegations. Perplexity AI has stated that the company "doesn't index books," suggesting it does not directly use book content in its training data.[2] This defense mirrors claims made by other AI companies that their use of publicly available works constitutes transformative fair use protected under copyright law.

AI developers argue more broadly that restrictive copyright enforcement would disadvantage innovation and create "a less open, creative, and accessible internet" with negative economic, strategic, and cultural consequences.[5] However, this argument has faced skepticism in some courts, particularly regarding the use of pirated materials rather than legitimately purchased or licensed content.

The distinction between using purchased books and pirated materials has proven legally significant. Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books it had purchased to train its models constitutes fair use, but declined to extend this protection to pirated books collected from the internet, indicating that question would proceed to trial.[3]

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Carreyrou lawsuit about?

John Carreyrou and five other authors filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity AI, alleging these companies used their copyrighted books to train large language models without permission or compensation.[1][2]

Why did the authors avoid filing as a class action?

The plaintiffs deliberately rejected class-action status to preserve their right to pursue individualized statutory damages, which can reach up to $150,000 per work per defendant under copyright law.[1] They argued that class-action settlements typically result in minimal payouts to individual authors, with some receiving only pennies on the dollar.[2]

Is this the first lawsuit against these AI companies?

While copyright suits against most of these companies have been filed previously, this is the first copyright lawsuit against xAI, Elon Musk's AI company.[1][2] Other defendants, particularly Anthropic, have faced multiple copyright lawsuits and have already settled one major class-action case for $1.5 billion.[3]

What is the legal standard for copyright infringement in AI training?

The central legal question is whether using copyrighted works to train AI models constitutes copyright infringement or falls under the "fair use" doctrine. Courts have found that using purchased books may qualify as fair use, but the legality of using pirated materials remains contested and subject to ongoing litigation.[3][5]

How much could authors potentially recover from this lawsuit?

Under the Copyright Act, statutory damages can reach up to $150,000 per work per defendant for copyright infringement.[1] Because the Carreyrou plaintiffs are pursuing individual claims rather than class-action status, they retain the possibility of securing substantially higher damages than typical class-action settlements have provided.[2]

What has Anthropic already paid in copyright settlements?

Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by approximately 500,000 authors for copyright infringement.[3] However, this settlement faced initial judicial rejection for insufficient detail about claims processes, and class members are expected to receive only a small fraction of the statutory damages available under copyright law.[2][3]