Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, ABKCO, and other publishers allege in federal court in California that Anthropic trained Claude on their lyrics and pirated their compositions. On October 21, 2026, the court heard argument on cross-motions for summary judgment on fair use in Concord I and did not rule. A related suit by Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music is before the same judge.
Latest development Oct 21, 2026
On October 21, 2026, the court held a daylong hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment on fair use in Concord I. Judge Eumi K. Lee questioned whether AI-generated lyric “mash-ups” could be fair use and how to narrow the case. She did not rule from the bench.
Why it matters
The cases test whether training an AI model on song lyrics is fair use and whether acquiring training data from pirate libraries creates separate liability, including for Anthropic’s founders personally. They extend to music the theory behind Anthropic’s $1.5B settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic.
Background
In October 2023, Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group entities, ABKCO, and other publishers sued Anthropic PBC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Concord I). They allege that Anthropic trained Claude on the lyrics of roughly 500 songs, from the Rolling Stones to Beyoncé, and that Claude could reproduce them on demand. In June 2024, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Eumi K. Lee. After the parties stipulated to output guardrails in January 2025, the court denied a preliminary injunction against training use in March 2025. It also dismissed secondary-liability claims with leave to amend, and in October 2025 it denied Anthropic’s renewed motion to dismiss.
In late January 2026, the publishers filed Concord II, modeled on Bartz v. Anthropic, which produced a $1.5B settlement over pirated books. The complaint alleges that Anthropic used BitTorrent to download millions of unauthorized copies from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror, including more than 20,000 musical compositions. It alleges that this conduct was concealed during Concord I discovery. The suit seeks roughly $3B and personally names CEO Dario Amodei, who allegedly authorized the conduct, and co-founder Benjamin Mann, who allegedly carried out the torrenting. In March 2026, BMG Rights Management (U.S.) LLC filed a related copyright suit against Anthropic over AI training.
Also in March 2026, the parties in Concord I cross-moved for partial summary judgment on fair use. The publishers argue that training a model to serve up lyrics on command is quintessential infringement, and Anthropic argues that it is transformative fair use. Briefing is complete, with amicus briefs filed on both sides. On April 24, 2026, Judge Lee denied Anthropic’s motion to stay Concord II and reset the Concord I hearing from July 15 to October 21, 2026. On July 22, 2026, the publishers filed a second amended complaint in Concord I, relying on internal Anthropic records obtained in discovery.
On August 3, 2026, Anthropic moved to dismiss the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and output-infringement claims in Concord II, leaving the torrenting and training claims unchallenged. Amodei separately moved to dismiss the direct infringement claim against him personally. On August 28, 2026, Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music filed a further suit against Anthropic, Amodei, and Mann over the same torrenting allegations. On September 9, 2026, Judge Lee related that suit to Concord I and Concord II, so she now oversees all music-publisher copyright suits against Anthropic, including BMG’s. On October 21, 2026, she held a daylong hearing on the fair-use cross-motions in Concord I and did not rule from the bench.
Timeline 17 events
-
HearingJudge Lee hears fair-use summary judgment arguments in Concord I
Judge Eumi K. Lee held a daylong hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment on fair use. She questioned whether AI-generated lyric “mash-ups” could be fair use and how to narrow the case’s scope, and did not rule from the bench.
Anthropic's Lyric 'Mash Up' May Be Fair Use, Judge SaysJudge Lee hears SJ motions in Concord Music v. Anthropic I
-
FilingAnthropic moves to partially dismiss BMG’s claims
Anthropic filed a motion for partial dismissal of BMG’s claims in the related BMG Rights Management v. Anthropic case before Judge Lee.
Anthropic moves to dismiss BMG's US copyright claimsAnthropic seeks partial dismissal of BMG's claimsBMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC docket
-
OrderCourt relates Sony and Warner Chappell suit to Concord I and II
Judge Eumi K. Lee related the newly filed suit to both Concord dockets. She now oversees all music-publisher copyright suits against Anthropic, including those of BMG, Round Hill Music, and Sony Music Publishing.
Judge Lee relates Sony Music v. Anthropic to Concord Music v. AnthropicNone of Them Should Be Trusted: AI, Copyright, and the Music Industry's Repeat Offenders
-
FilingSony and Warner Chappell sue Anthropic and its founders over torrenting
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann over the same torrenting allegations raised in Concord II.
-
FilingAnthropic and Amodei move to partially dismiss Concord II complaint
Anthropic challenged only the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and output-infringement claims, arguing that the roughly 21,000-work complaint identifies no instance of Claude reproducing a lyric. Amodei separately moved to dismiss the direct infringement claim against him.
Anthropic moves to dismiss the output and DMCA claims in the publishers' $3B lyrics suit as Amodei seeks to drop his own countAnthropic Seeks Partial Dismissal in 'Concord II' Copyright Lawsuit
-
FilingPublishers file second amended complaint in Concord I
The complaint covers roughly 500 songs and expands on the amended complaint first filed in May 2026. It relies on internal Anthropic records obtained in discovery to allege that the company’s systems were designed to reproduce copyrighted lyrics.
Music publishers file amended lyrics lawsuit against AnthropicMusic Publishers Expand Copyright Lawsuit Against Anthropic Over Song Lyrics
-
OrderCourt resets Concord I summary judgment hearing to October 21, 2026
The hearing on the cross-motions for partial summary judgment on fair use had been calendared for July 15, 2026.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 5:24-cv-03811 – CourtListener.com
-
OrderCourt denies Anthropic’s motion to stay Concord II
Judge Lee declined to pause the piracy suit pending Concord I. Anthropic’s response was due August 3, 2026.
-
OrderAmici file briefs on fair-use summary judgment motions
Copyright law professors, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CCIA, and Chamber of Progress with Engine Advocacy supported Anthropic. The Association of American Publishers, News/Media Alliance, RIAA, and NMPA supported the music publishers.
RIAA, NMPA, and more file amicus brief backing UMG, Concord and ABKCOBook, News, and Journal Publishers Join with Authors in Amicus Brief
-
OrderParties cross-move for summary judgment on fair use
The publishers moved for partial summary judgment that Anthropic’s copying is not fair use, and Anthropic sought a fair-use ruling. The hearing was noticed for July 15, 2026.
Publishers’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 594)Music publishers file for partial summary judgment (Music Ally)
-
FilingBMG files related copyright suit against Anthropic
BMG Rights Management (U.S.) LLC sued Anthropic PBC for copyright infringement over AI training. The case was later assigned to Judge Eumi K. Lee and related to the Concord I and II proceedings.
BMG sues Anthropic for infringement, alleging AI firm's $380B valuation was built on 'stolen copyrighted works'BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC docketBMG sues Anthropic for using Bruno Mars, Rolling Stones lyrics in AI training
-
FilingPublishers file Concord II and name Anthropic’s founders personally
The second suit alleges mass BitTorrent downloading from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror covering more than 20,000 compositions. It seeks about $3B from Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann.
Music Publishers File New Piracy Suit Against Anthropic (IPWatchdog)
-
OrderCourt denies Anthropic’s renewed motion to dismiss
The amended secondary-liability and Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims proceeded alongside the direct infringement claims.
-
OrderCourt denies preliminary injunction and trims secondary-liability claims
Judge Lee found the requested injunction overbroad and irreparable harm unshown. She dismissed the contributory, vicarious, and copyright management information (CMI) removal claims with leave to amend.
-
OrderAnthropic agrees to maintain guardrails on lyric outputs
The stipulation covered current Claude models and narrowed the preliminary-injunction dispute to training use.
-
OrderCase moves to the Northern District of California
The case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
-
FilingPublishers sue Anthropic over Claude’s use of lyrics
Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group entities, and ABKCO filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging infringement of roughly 500 compositions in training and output.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the court resolve the cross-motions for partial summary judgment on fair use in Concord I, or will the case settle first, by June 30, 2027?
- Split ruling or both motions denied34%
- Court rules Anthropic’s use is fair use22%
- Publishers settle with Anthropic18%
- Still pending on June 30, 202714%
- Court rules copying is not fair use12%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely result, at 34%, is a split ruling or denial of both motions by June 30, 2027. The publishers’ claims mix training use with alleged lyric outputs and internal records, so a clean ruling for either side on every theory is less likely than a narrowed, partial outcome.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first of these events, as shown on the public docket of No. 5:24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.) or in reliable reporting, on or before June 30, 2027. (1) The court issues an order holding Anthropic’s use fair use as a matter of law on the claims the motions cover. (2) The court holds the use is not fair use as a matter of law. (3) The court grants each side in part, denies both motions, or otherwise leaves fair use partly or wholly for trial. (4) Before any such order, the parties announce a settlement or file a notice of settlement or dismissal of Concord I. (5) None of these occurs by June 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Fair-use summary judgment rulings in U.S. generative-AI training copyright cases, and cross-motions on fact-intensive defenses in federal court: Fact-intensive cross-motions often yield partial rulings. Of three prior AI-training fair-use rulings (Bartz, Kadrey, Thomson Reuters v. Ross), one split, one favored the AI developer narrowly, and one rejected fair use.
The base rate for cross-motions on a fact-heavy defense like fair use favors partial outcomes. The few AI-training rulings to date have split on whether training is transformative, and courts have treated outputs and data acquisition separately. Here the motions were argued on October 21, 2026, and the court took them under submission. Complex N.D. Cal. summary judgment orders typically issue within several months, so a ruling before June 30, 2027, is likely but not certain. The hearing covered lyric mash-ups and how to narrow the case, which fits a partial or scope-limiting order. A clear fair-use win for Anthropic is the leading alternative, supported by the training-focused rulings in Bartz and Kadrey and by the output guardrails stipulation. A clear win for the publishers is less likely given that precedent, though the second amended complaint’s reliance on internal records helps them. Settlement remains plausible because Anthropic now faces several related music suits, including torrenting claims modeled on the Bartz case that ended in a $1.5 billion settlement, and a global deal could resolve them together. The previous forecast asked the same question one day ago, and no new development in the record justifies changing any number.
Motions fully argued and under submission since October 21, 2026 · Prior AI rulings split between training and other conduct · Output claims and internal records complicate a clean fair-use win · Related torrenting suits raise pressure for a global settlement · Complex opinion may take months to issue
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 22, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, is a party to this case.