Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and a coalition of other major music publishers filed a lawsuit late Friday against Anthropic and its co-founders, Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann, accusing the AI company of a “brazen campaign” of intellectual property theft. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and first reported by Music Business Worldwide, alleges that Anthropic engaged in “flagrant piracy” by illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading thousands of copyrighted works — including books containing lyrics and sheet music — to train its Claude AI models.
Anthropic had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication. TechCrunch will update this article if the company issues a statement.
Also read: Meta India VP Sandhya Devanathan Departs for OpenAI Amid Regulatory Pressure
A growing legal battle over AI training data
This lawsuit is not the first intellectual property challenge Anthropic has faced, but it marks a significant escalation. The same legal team behind this case previously represented Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group in a January lawsuit, and also led the Bartz v. Anthropic case, in which a group of authors accused the company of using copyrighted works without permission.
In the Bartz case, a judge ruled that while it was legal for Anthropic to use copyrighted works for AI training, it was not legal to acquire that content through piracy. The court ordered Anthropic to pay $1.5 billion in damages — a landmark decision that has shaped the legal field for AI companies.
Also read: Anthropic researcher shows AI systems can improve their own alignment training
The new suit builds on that ruling, but with key differences. It is broader in scope, explicitly accusing Anthropic of using torrenting to obtain “millions of copies” of books, including those containing musical lyrics and sheet music. The publishers argue this constitutes “blatant theft” of their intellectual property, and they are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
What this means for the AI industry and creators
The music publishing industry has been particularly aggressive in pursuing AI companies over copyright infringement. Earlier this year, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed lawsuits against several AI music generators, and the outcome of the Anthropic case could set a precedent for how AI models are trained on copyrighted material.
For Anthropic, the stakes are high. The company has positioned itself as a responsible AI leader, but this lawsuit — along with the Bartz damages — threatens to undermine that reputation. If the court finds that Anthropic deliberately used pirated content, it could face additional financial penalties and stricter oversight of its training data practices.
For creators and publishers, the case is a test of whether existing copyright laws can protect their work in the age of generative AI. The music publishers argue that AI models like Claude are essentially “memorizing” and reproducing their works, which they say is not “fair use” but outright theft.
What to watch next
Legal experts will be watching to see how the court handles the piracy allegations, which are more specific than in previous cases. Anthropic is likely to argue that its use of copyrighted works falls under fair use, as it has in earlier litigation. However, the Bartz ruling suggests that the method of acquisition matters — and that could be the decisive factor here.
The case also comes at a time when regulators and lawmakers are scrutinizing AI training data practices. The European Union’s AI Act, which took effect earlier this year, includes transparency requirements for training data, and similar proposals are being debated in the U.S. Congress. A ruling against Anthropic could accelerate those efforts.
As the legal battle unfolds, the broader AI industry will be watching closely. The outcome could reshape how companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and others source their training data — and how they compensate the creators whose works they use.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. The legal and market outcomes discussed are inherently uncertain and subject to change.
