Music Publishers Sue Anthropic for $3 Billion Over Alleged Piracy of Thousands of Works

Background and Allegations

A group of music publishers, including Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group, has brought a civil action against Anthropic, an artificial‑intelligence company known for its Claude language model. The plaintiffs allege that Anthropic illegally downloaded more than 20,000 copyrighted works—covering songs, sheet music, lyrics, and musical compositions—through piracy. The lawsuit asserts that the unauthorized acquisition of these works could generate damages in excess of $3 billion, positioning the case among the largest non‑class‑action copyright suits ever filed in the United States.

Connection to Prior Litigation

The publishers’ lawsuit follows a separate case, Bartz v. Anthropic, in which a group of fiction and nonfiction authors accused Anthropic of using their copyrighted material to train its AI products. In that earlier case, a judge ruled that while training on copyrighted content can be lawful, acquiring the content via piracy is not. The Bartz case resulted in a settlement of $1.5 billion, with impacted writers receiving modest compensation per work.

Discovery of Additional Infringements

During discovery in the Bartz case, the music publishers uncovered evidence suggesting that Anthropic’s piracy extended far beyond the roughly 500 works originally cited in their own earlier lawsuit. The new findings indicate that the company accessed thousands of additional copyrighted works without permission. When the publishers attempted to amend their original suit to address these broader piracy claims, the court denied the motion, stating that the publishers had not previously investigated the new allegations. Consequently, the publishers filed a separate lawsuit to pursue the expanded claims.

Defendants Named

In addition to Anthropic as a corporate entity, the lawsuit names the company’s chief executive officer, Dario Amodei, and co‑founder Benjamin Mann as individual defendants. The plaintiffs argue that the leadership bears responsibility for the alleged illegal downloading and for presenting the company as a “safety and research” organization while allegedly relying on pirated content to develop its AI models.

Company Response

Anthropic has not provided comment to inquiries regarding the lawsuit. The filing underscores the tension between rapidly advancing AI technologies and existing intellectual‑property frameworks, raising questions about how AI developers obtain and use copyrighted material during model training.

Potential Impact

If the plaintiffs succeed, the case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate the legality of content acquisition for AI training. A damages award of the magnitude claimed would represent a significant financial penalty for Anthropic and could influence industry practices around data sourcing and licensing.