Five publishers, author Scott Turow, and other plaintiffs allege that Meta and Mark Zuckerberg pirated millions of books and articles to train Llama. They filed a putative class action in New York federal court in May 2026. After a September 2026 transfer order, the case was reopened in October 2026 in the Northern District of California, where the related Kadrey v. Meta litigation is pending.
Latest development Oct 2026
In October 2026, following the September 25 transfer order, the case was reopened in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as case number 4:26-cv-11415. It is expected to be treated as related to the Kadrey v. Meta Platforms litigation, which is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.
Why it matters
The case tests whether publishers can prove the market harm that the Kadrey v. Meta court found missing when it granted Meta summary judgment on fair use in June 2025. The outcome matters to AI developers and rights holders after Anthropic’s $1.5B settlement.
Background
On May 5, 2026, five publishing houses sued Meta Platforms, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg over the training of Meta’s Llama large language models. The publishers are Elsevier, Cengage Learning, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan Publishers, and McGraw Hill. Author Scott Turow, S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc., and Kenneth Saladin joined them as named plaintiffs in a putative class action. The plaintiffs filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge P. Kevin Castel.
The plaintiffs allege Meta downloaded millions of books and journal articles from shadow libraries such as Library Genesis and Sci-Hub rather than pay for licenses. They allege Meta trained Llama on more than 267 terabytes of copyrighted material from pirate sites and masked its IP addresses to avoid detection when torrenting from unlawful sources. They also allege Meta stripped copyright management information from the works to hide their origin and abandoned licensing negotiations with publishers in 2023 at Zuckerberg’s direction. The plaintiffs argue Llama can be prompted to output substantial verbatim passages from textbooks and scholarly articles. They say this shows the market substitution that was missing from the record in Kadrey v. Meta.
Kadrey and related Meta AI-training suits are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In Kadrey, Judge Vince Chhabria granted Meta summary judgment on fair use for training in June 2025, largely because the plaintiffs had not shown market harm. That ruling left the authors’ torrent-distribution claim pending. On June 26, 2026, Meta and Zuckerberg moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California for coordination with Kadrey and other pending Meta AI-training litigation. On July 13, 2026, Meta answered the complaint rather than moving to dismiss, raising affirmative defenses including copyright misuse and unclean hands.
On July 24, 2026, after briefing closed on July 20, Judge Castel adjourned the initial pretrial conference and transfer argument to September 15, 2026. He said he would set no further schedule, including for Zuckerberg’s anticipated motion to dismiss the claims against him personally or any motion to strike, until he ruled on transfer. On August 18, 2026, the plaintiffs, who had sought leave to move to strike Meta’s defenses, proposed a briefing schedule for that motion in a joint letter. On September 25, 2026, the court granted the transfer motion under the first-filed rule and administratively closed the New York action. In October 2026, the case was reopened in the Northern District of California as case number 4:26-cv-11415, and it is expected to be related to Kadrey.
Timeline 15 events
-
OrderNorthern District of California dockets transferred case as 4:26-cv-11415
The case was docketed following the September 25 transfer order. It was expected to be related to the Kadrey v. Meta Platforms litigation before Judge Vince Chhabria.
26-11415 - Elsevier Inc. et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al - USCOURTS-cand-4_26-cv-11415Elsevier v. Meta transferred to ND California and likely Judge Chhabria
-
OrderCourt transfers case to the Northern District of California
The court found that the first-filed presumption favoring Kadrey v. Meta and related California book cases had not been rebutted and that convenience factors favored transfer. It administratively closed the New York action.
Elsevier Inc. v. PlatformsJudge Castel transfers Elsevier v. Meta to ND California. Likely to be related to Kadrey v. Meta.
-
OrderPublishers propose briefing schedule for motion to strike
The plaintiffs submitted a joint letter proposing a briefing schedule for their anticipated motion to strike Meta’s affirmative defenses.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docket
-
OrderCourt adjourns conference and transfer argument to September 15, 2026
Judge Castel adjourned the initial pretrial conference and oral argument on the transfer motion, saying he would set a further schedule only after ruling on transfer.
-
OrderJudge Castel adjourns conference and transfer argument to September 15, 2026
-
OrderParties complete briefing on transfer motion
Briefing closed on Meta and Zuckerberg’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs’ opposition was supported by a declaration from Steven Rosenthal.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docket
-
FilingMeta answers the complaint and raises affirmative defenses
Meta filed its answer with a jury demand, raising affirmative defenses including copyright misuse and unclean hands, rather than moving to dismiss.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docketAI Copyright Lawsuits Tracker 2026: Live Case Status
-
FilingMeta answers the complaint
-
OrderMeta and Zuckerberg move to transfer case to Northern District of California
They sought coordination with Kadrey v. Meta and related Meta AI-training litigation pending there.
-
FilingMeta and Zuckerberg move to transfer case to Northern District of California
-
OrderZuckerberg waives service
Mark Zuckerberg’s waiver of service was returned executed, setting his answer deadline for July 13, 2026.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docket
-
OrderPlaintiffs serve Meta with the complaint
An affidavit of service showed Meta Platforms was served on May 7, 2026, with an answer due May 28, 2026, before the waiver extension.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docket
-
OrderCourt enters initial pretrial conference order
Judge Castel set an initial pretrial conference for June 29, 2026.
Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:26-cv-03689 – CourtListener docket
-
OrderCourt sets initial pretrial conference
Judge P. Kevin Castel set the initial pretrial conference for June 29, 2026.
-
FilingPublishers and Scott Turow file putative class action against Meta
The plaintiffs sued Meta and Mark Zuckerberg in the Southern District of New York. They allege willful copyright infringement in the training of Meta’s Llama AI models.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeAfter transfer to the Northern District of California, how will the court rule on claims against Mark Zuckerberg personally by September 30, 2027?
- Claims against Zuckerberg survive28%
- Still pending on September 30, 202727%
- Court dismisses Zuckerberg from case24%
- Some claims against Zuckerberg survive16%
- Zuckerberg claims end by deal or dismissal5%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Low
Claims against Mark Zuckerberg personally are slightly more likely to survive a motion to dismiss, in full (28%) or in part (16%), than to be dismissed (24%), by September 30, 2027. The complaint pleads specific personal direction, including ending licensing talks in 2023. A 27% chance of no ruling reflects post-transfer scheduling and possible coordination with Kadrey.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first court order in case 4:26-cv-11415, or any consolidated Kadrey docket, that decides a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings on the claims against Mark Zuckerberg. “Survive” means the motion is denied in full. “Dismissed” means every claim against him is dismissed, with or without leave to amend. “Some survive” means at least one claim is dismissed and at least one survives. If the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss Zuckerberg, or a stipulation or settlement removes him before any such ruling, the deal outcome applies. If none of these occurs by September 30, 2027, the question resolves as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. Rule 12 motions by corporate officers sued personally for copyright infringement they allegedly directed: Officer-liability claims with specific allegations of personal direction survive the pleading stage roughly half to 60% of the time, often in part.
Corporate officers who personally authorize or direct infringement can be held liable, and pleaded facts showing such direction often survive Rule 12 review, in whole or in part. The complaint alleges Zuckerberg directed Meta to abandon licensing talks in 2023 and approved the use of pirated sources, which goes beyond bare reliance on his title. Against that, courts require more than a senior role, and his counsel can argue that the alleged acts are ordinary business decisions rather than participation in infringement. Timing is the main uncertainty. Judge Castel deferred all scheduling until transfer, and the transferee court must still relate the case, set a schedule, and decide whether to coordinate it with Kadrey’s remaining claims. A stay or consolidated schedule could push any ruling past September 2027. The October 2026 docketing in California was the expected next step and does not move any outcome from the previous forecast on this same question. A voluntary dismissal of Zuckerberg alone is unlikely while the plaintiffs press willfulness, though a broader Meta settlement could remove him.
Specific allegations that Zuckerberg directed licensing abandonment and piracy · Scheduling and coordination choices after relation to Kadrey · Standards for personal officer liability in copyright cases · Possibility of a stay pending Kadrey’s remaining claims · Meta’s settlement incentives after Anthropic’s $1.5 billion deal
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, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.