A coalition of artificial intelligence industry groups and author advocacy organizations is urging a federal appeals court to block what they describe as the largest copyright class action ever certified, warning that the case could financially devastate not only Anthropic, the AI company at its center, but the entire generative AI industry, per Ars Technica.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit brought by three authors alleging that Anthropic illegally trained its AI models on copyrighted books without permission. The class was certified earlier this year by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, potentially allowing up to 7 million claimants—whose works span a century of publishing—to join the litigation. If each claimant pursued statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work, Anthropic could face hundreds of billions of dollars in liability when the case goes to trial in just four months.
Last week, Anthropic petitioned the appeals court to intervene, arguing that Judge Alsup rushed to certify the class without conducting the “rigorous analysis” required under federal law. The company claims the decision was based largely on the judge’s personal experience—his “50 years” on the bench—rather than a detailed review of who the class members are, what works are at issue, and whether their claims can be handled collectively.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
Anthropic warns that the scope of the class and the speed of the proceedings leave it with an impossible choice: settle the case to avoid catastrophic damages or go to trial under conditions it sees as fundamentally unfair. Either outcome, it argues, would set a dangerous precedent for every generative AI company facing copyright claims.
“One district court’s errors should not be allowed to decide the fate of a transformational GenAI company like Anthropic or so heavily influence the future of the GenAI industry generally,” the company wrote in its filing.
Industry Backs Anthropic’s Warning
The Consumer Technology Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association have filed briefs supporting Anthropic’s appeal. They warn that allowing massive copyright claims in AI training cases will open the door for “emboldened” claimants to force enormous settlements, chilling investment, and slowing innovation.
“As generative AI begins to shape the trajectory of the global economy, the technology industry cannot withstand such devastating litigation,” the groups wrote. “The United States currently may be the global leader in AI development, but that could change if litigation stymies investment by imposing excessive damages on AI companies.”
Authors’ Advocates Join the Call
In an unusual twist, author advocacy groups—including Authors Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and Public Knowledge—also backed Anthropic’s petition. While many authors oppose AI companies training on their works without consent, these advocates argue that large copyright cases are ill-suited for class-action treatment.
They point to the complexity of determining copyright ownership, especially for older or “orphaned” works, titles from defunct publishers, or books with split rights between authors, estates, and publishers. They also note that some authors may never even learn of the lawsuit under the proposed notification plan, leaving them unable to opt out or pursue claims independently.
The advocates cite the Google Books case, which cost $34.5 million just to create a registry of rights holders, as evidence that identifying and compensating millions of authors is far more complicated than the court has acknowledged.
Risk of Unresolved Copyright Questions
Critics of the class certification warn that the case could end in a massive settlement without ever resolving the fundamental question of whether training AI models on copyrighted works constitutes infringement. That, they argue, would leave the AI industry operating under a cloud of legal uncertainty while giving future plaintiffs leverage to extract large payouts without definitive legal guidance.
“This case is of exceptional importance,” author advocates wrote. “The district court’s rushed decision to certify the class represents a ‘death knell’ scenario that will mean important issues affecting the rights of millions of authors with respect to AI will never be adequately resolved.”
If the appeals court grants Anthropic’s petition, the class certification could be overturned or sent back for a more detailed review. If it doesn’t, the case will move toward trial in what could become a landmark battle over the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence—a fight with consequences far beyond one company’s survival.