🔍 Read the full analysis: How The Pirated Books Allegations Could Shape Anthropic’s IPO on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Anthropic filed to go public on October 27, 2026, as disputes over pirated books used in its early AI development remain in court. A judge found that training on books was fair use but ruled that retaining pirated copies was not; Anthropic later agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement while denying wrongdoing. New lawsuits by authors who opted out are unresolved, and the IPO filing describes AI risks without saying Claude is sentient or will blackmail people.
Anthropic filed to go public on October 27 while facing unresolved copyright lawsuits from authors who opted out of a $1.5 billion settlement over pirated books. The dispute could shape how investors assess the company’s legal exposure and disclosures, but the record does not support the claim that a court ruled Anthropic’s AI training itself illegal: a 2025 judge found training on books was fair use while ruling that downloading and keeping pirated copies was not.
The central ruling came in Bartz v. Anthropic. On June 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said training Claude on books was fair use, describing the use as “spectacularly” fair. He separately ruled against Anthropic’s acquisition and permanent retention of pirated copies. His order identified about 196,640 books from Books3, at least five million copies from Library Genesis and at least two million from the Pirate Library Mirror.
The case settled before a jury decided damages. In July 2026, the court gave final approval to a $1.5 billion settlement covering owners of roughly 500,000 registered books Anthropic downloaded from the two pirated collections. The settlement works out to about $3,000 per book before fees. It requires Anthropic to destroy the downloaded collections and their copies, subject to legal-hold obligations, and releases claims over past conduct through August 25, 2025. It does not release claims about Claude’s outputs.
Anthropic denies wrongdoing. In the settlement, it represented that neither the LibGen nor PiLiMi datasets, nor portions of them, were in the training corpus of any commercially released large language model. That statement should be distinguished from the 2025 court record, which found that portions of the collections were used to train some models. The settlement did not resolve every issue raised by authors who did not participate.
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
How Copyright Risk Could Affect Investors
For prospective shareholders, the dispute is not simply a question of whether training an AI model on books is lawful. The court drew a distinction between transformative training and obtaining and retaining pirated copies. That distinction may matter to future cases involving training data, but the ruling in Bartz is not a blanket decision on every dataset, model or copyright claim.
The settled case also gives investors a concrete measure of past legal cost: $1.5 billion, with payments scheduled across several instalments. The new suits create a separate source of uncertainty because claims from authors who opted out have not been decided. Their outcome, the scope of any potential damages and the effect on Anthropic’s operations remain open questions, not established liabilities of a known amount.
IPO disclosures are another point of attention. Anthropic’s S-1 discusses model behavior resembling blackmail in a staged safety test, debate about possible AI sentience and existential concerns raised by others. It does not say Claude is sentient or predict that the model will blackmail people or end humanity. Investors evaluating the filing need to distinguish its risk disclosures from viral summaries that turn conditional or attributed language into predictions.
Products Worth Considering
Amazon Kindle Scribe Colorsoft 64GB (1st Generation)
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
DJI Osmo Pocket 3 Filter Bundle – Vlogging Camera with 1 CMOS Sensor and 4K/120fps
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Bartz Ruling to New Suits
Bartz v. Anthropic was filed by three authors in August 2024. In the 2025 summary-judgment order, Alsup treated the authors’ account of the pirated downloads as the facts for that stage of the case. A jury was expected to decide remaining issues, including damages, but the parties settled before trial. The decision therefore addressed the legal character of the conduct described in the order; it was not a jury verdict on damages.
In May 2026, authors who opted out of the settlement filed new lawsuits. Their filings are allegations, not court findings. A report by The Stanford Daily named several Stanford-affiliated writers and said ten works by novelist Tobias Wolff were affected. The article also described a ruling as coming from a May 2026 lawsuit, but the linked decision is the June 2025 order in the separate Bartz case. The book list has not been independently verified here against the settlement database.
There is also uncertainty about who is named in the new cases. Chang-rae Lee appears as a plaintiff in one of the suits identified in the source material, while Wolff was not found among the plaintiffs listed in five related cases as of August 2026. That does not establish whether he is involved in another action or a later amendment.
“Neither the LibGen or PiLiMi datasets, nor any portions of those datasets, were in the training corpus of any of its commercially released large language models.”
— Anthropic, in its settlement representation
What the New Claims May Establish
No judge has ruled on the May 2026 lawsuits, and the December hearing has not yet taken place. The allegations, including claims about particular authors’ books, must not be treated as findings. It is also not clear from the available material how the courts will assess the claims or what damages, if any, might follow.
The settlement and the company’s training-data representation use different descriptions of the datasets and models. The available record does not settle every question about how particular pirated books relate to specific model versions or commercial releases. Nor does the IPO filing itself decide the copyright disputes. The timing and consequences of any disclosure updates, and the financial impact of unresolved litigation, remain uncertain.
December Hearing and IPO Review
The next stated court milestone is a December 17, 2026 hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the opt-out authors’ claims. The hearing could narrow or advance parts of the litigation, but it is not a trial or a final ruling on whether the authors’ allegations are true.
Investors and regulators will also be able to examine Anthropic’s public-company disclosures as the IPO process proceeds. The settlement’s remaining payments are scheduled through September 27, 2027. Further court filings, rulings or disclosure changes may clarify the company’s legal exposure; until then, the settled claims, new allegations and IPO risk statements should be read as distinct parts of the record.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that Anthropic’s AI training was illegal?
No. In the June 2025 Bartz order, Judge Alsup found training Claude on books to be fair use. He ruled separately that downloading and keeping pirated book copies was not fair use.
What does the $1.5 billion settlement cover?
It covers owners of roughly 500,000 registered books Anthropic downloaded from LibGen or PiLiMi. The settlement resolves specified past claims through August 25, 2025; claims about Claude’s outputs are not released.
Have the authors who opted out won their lawsuits?
No. Their cases are unresolved allegations. A hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for December 17, 2026.
Does Anthropic’s IPO filing say Claude is sentient or will blackmail people?
No. The filing discusses behavior resembling blackmail in a staged safety test, debate about AI sentience and existential concerns raised by others. Those disclosures are not a statement that Claude is sentient or will blackmail people.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
