🔍 Read the full analysis: What The Pirated Books Allegations Could Mean For Anthropic’s IPO on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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
Anthropic filed to go public a day before a report renewed scrutiny of allegations that it used pirated books. A 2025 judge found that downloading books to build a permanent library was not fair use, while finding that training Claude on books was fair use; a $1.5 billion settlement resolved claims for a defined group of books. New suits by authors who opted out remain unresolved, and the S-1 describes risks rather than proving that Claude can blackmail people or is sentient.
Anthropic filed to go public on October 27, 2026, renewing investor attention to its copyright record: the company agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement over pirated book copies, and separate lawsuits from authors who opted out are still pending. The dispute may shape questions about legal exposure and business risk in an IPO, but it is important to distinguish the court’s findings from unresolved claims and from what Anthropic disclosed in its filing.
In Bartz v. Anthropic, U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s June 23, 2025 order drew a distinction between training and acquiring source material. He found that using books to train Claude was fair use and also found that Anthropic’s purchase and scanning of print books was fair use. But he ruled that downloading pirated books and keeping them in a permanent library was not fair use. The order described more than seven million copies across Books3, Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror.
The ruling was a pretrial decision, not a jury verdict on damages. The settlement later resolved claims for roughly 500,000 registered books associated with LibGen and PiLiMi, at about $3,000 per book before fees. The settlement was finally approved in July 2026. Anthropic 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 source account says the settlement requires the company to destroy downloaded copies, subject to legal-hold obligations, and releases specified past claims rather than claims about Claude’s outputs.
Authors who opted out have brought new cases, including one naming novelist Chang-rae Lee, according to the source account. Those claims have not been decided. Anthropic’s lawyers have said the company will not settle above the value it assigns to the Bartz claim. A motion-to-dismiss hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2026; the result could determine which allegations proceed, not establish that they are true.
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
Copyright Risk in the IPO
For prospective investors, the issue is not simply whether a court once allowed AI training on copyrighted books. The 2025 order separated that use from the earlier acquisition and retention of pirated copies, which the judge found unlawful under copyright law. The settlement gives a measurable indication of the cost of one set of claims, while the opt-out cases leave open whether Anthropic faces further litigation or potential liability.
The dispute also bears on how investors assess the company’s data practices and the durability of its business model. AI developers need large collections of material to train models, and copyright disputes can bring legal expense, settlement costs, changes to data handling, or uncertainty about future products. Those are risks to evaluate, not outcomes established by the filing or by the pending cases. The available source material does not provide the full S-1 or enough detail to assess the company’s finances, valuation, or how investors have priced the litigation.
Some viral descriptions of the filing have gone further, suggesting it says Claude could blackmail people or become sentient. The source account says the S-1 instead discusses model behavior that resembled blackmail in testing, debate about AI sentience as a possible regulatory issue, and existential concerns raised by others. These are risk disclosures and attributed concerns; they do not establish that Claude is sentient or that it has blackmailed a person.
Products Worth Considering
Apple iPad Air (2025) 13‑inch Wi‑Fi 256 GB – Space Gray (M3 chip)
DJI Osmo Pocket 3 Creator Combo Vlogging Camera with Mic 2, 1 CMOS, 4K/120fps, 3-Axis Stabilization, 128GB Card
DJI Osmo Pocket 3 Vlogging Camera with 1-Inch CMOS Sensor and 4K Video
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Court Actually Decided
The underlying case, Bartz v. Anthropic, was filed by three authors in August 2024. In his June 2025 summary-judgment order, Judge Alsup said training on books could qualify as fair use, describing the model’s purpose as learning from works to create something different. He treated buying and scanning print books separately from downloading pirated files. On the latter, the order accepted the authors’ account for purposes of the pretrial ruling and found that every fair-use factor weighed against Anthropic.
Because the case settled, a jury did not decide the remaining questions, including damages. The $1.5 billion agreement covers a defined group of registered books and specified past conduct; it is not a general licence to use copyrighted works, nor does the source say that it resolves every author’s potential claims. Authors who opted out can pursue separate litigation, where the facts and legal questions remain to be tested.
A Stanford Daily report identified Stanford-affiliated authors whose books it said appeared among the pirated copies, including Tobias Wolff, Abraham Verghese, Chang-rae Lee, Daniel Mason, Hayagreeva Rao and Myra Strober. That list has not been independently checked against the settlement database in the source account. It also says Chang-rae Lee appears as a plaintiff in one new suit, while the author could not find Wolff listed among plaintiffs in five related cases as of August 2026. The report’s headline should not be confused with a finding that a court ruled in May 2026: the cited ruling was from June 2025, in a different case.
“spectacularly so”
— Judge William Alsup, in the June 2025 Bartz order
Open Questions for Anthropic
The pending lawsuits have not been decided, and it is not yet clear which claims will survive Anthropic’s motion to dismiss. The December hearing is a procedural milestone, not a trial or a final ruling on liability. The source account also does not establish whether every book named in press coverage appears in the settlement database or the new complaints.
There is a difference between the 2025 court record, Anthropic’s settlement representation, and the scope of the settled claims. The judge’s order concerned the acquisition and use of pirated material in the case before him; Anthropic’s representation addressed whether LibGen or PiLiMi material appeared in training corpora of commercially released models. The settlement does not resolve claims about model outputs, according to the source. The full S-1 text, its complete risk disclosures and the company’s response to the latest lawsuits are not reproduced in the supplied material, so further claims about the filing should be checked against the primary document.
It is also unknown how much, if at all, the litigation will affect the IPO’s timing, pricing or investor demand. Those outcomes depend on financial disclosures, market conditions and developments in court, none of which can be inferred from the settlement amount alone.
Next Court and IPO Milestones
The next specified litigation milestone is the December 17, 2026 hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the opt-out authors’ claims. The court’s decision could narrow or advance the cases, but it will not by itself determine damages or settle every copyright question. The parties may also continue negotiations, though the source account reports Anthropic has rejected settlement offers above its assessment of the Bartz claim value.
On the public-market side, investors will be able to assess Anthropic’s risks and financial position through the full IPO prospectus and subsequent filings as the offering proceeds. Those documents, along with court orders and any amendments to the complaints, will clarify what the company says about litigation exposure and what claims remain active. Until then, the clearest account is limited: a court found pirated downloads unlawful in the case before it, the related settlement is approved, and separate claims remain unresolved.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that Anthropic illegally trained Claude on books?
No. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup found that training Claude on books was fair use. He separately ruled that downloading pirated copies to keep a permanent library was not fair use. The claims in later author lawsuits have not been decided.
What does the $1.5 billion settlement cover?
According to the source account, it resolves claims involving roughly 500,000 registered books associated with Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror, for specified past conduct. It does not amount to a general licence for copyrighted books, and claims about Claude’s outputs were not released.
Are the new lawsuits a ruling against Anthropic?
No. Authors who opted out filed new lawsuits, but their claims remain pending. Anthropic has sought dismissal, and a hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2026.
Does Anthropic’s IPO filing say Claude is sentient or can blackmail people?
The source account says the S-1 discusses model behavior that resembled blackmail in a test, debate about AI sentience as a possible regulatory issue, and existential concerns raised by others. Those disclosures do not establish that Claude is sentient or has blackmailed anyone.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
