Five major publishers (Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill) and author Scott Turow filed a putative class action accusing Meta of pirating millions of books and journal articles to train its Llama models without permission or payment. The complaint alleges Meta abandoned licensing talks in 2023 and deliberately relied on shadow libraries, and that Llama can reproduce full scientific papers, textbook chapters and study guides that substitute for the plaintiffs’ own products.
LATEST DEVELOPMENT · JUL 24, 2026
Meta answered the complaint on July 13, 2026 rather than moving to dismiss, while Meta and Mark Zuckerberg moved on June 26 to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, where Kadrey v. Meta is pending. That motion was fully briefed on July 20. Zuckerberg has signaled a personal motion to dismiss and the publishers have sought leave to move to strike parts of Meta’s answer. Judge P. Kevin Castel adjourned the initial pretrial conference and argument on the transfer motion to September 15, 2026 and will set a schedule only after deciding transfer.
BACKGROUND
Five publishing houses, Elsevier, Cengage Learning, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan Publishers and McGraw Hill, joined by author Scott Turow and two other named plaintiffs, sued Meta Platforms and Mark Zuckerberg in May 2026 over the training of Meta’s Llama large language models. The publishers allege Meta downloaded millions of books and journal articles from shadow libraries such as Library Genesis and Sci-Hub rather than pay for licenses, and that it stripped copyright management information from the works to hide their origin. They argue Llama can be prompted to output substantial verbatim passages from textbooks and scholarly articles, which they say proves the kind of market substitution that was missing from the record in the earlier Kadrey v. Meta case.
The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York before Judge P. Kevin Castel rather than in the Northern District of California, where Kadrey and related Meta AI-training suits are consolidated. <cite index=”4-3,4-4”>The complaint alleges that Meta trained its Llama models on more than 267 terabytes of copyrighted material from notorious pirate sites, and further claims that Meta masked its IP addresses to avoid detection when torrenting from unlawful sources, stripped copyright notices from the works, and abandoned legitimate licensing negotiations with publishers at Zuckerberg’s direction.</cite> Those allegations are aimed squarely at the fair-use analysis that led Judge Vince Chhabria to rule for Meta on summary judgment in Kadrey in June 2025, largely because the Kadrey plaintiffs had not shown market harm.
Meta chose to answer the complaint in July 2026 rather than move to dismiss, but Meta and Zuckerberg separately moved to transfer the entire case to the Northern District of California so it can be coordinated with Kadrey and other pending Meta AI-training litigation there. That transfer motion was fully briefed by late July 2026 and remains under submission. The publishers have in turn sought leave to strike affirmative defenses, including copyright misuse and unclean hands, that Meta raised in its answer, and Zuckerberg has signaled he intends to file his own motion to dismiss the claims against him personally.
As of mid-September 2026, the case remains at the pleadings stage. Judge Castel adjourned the initial pretrial conference and argument on the transfer motion to September 15, 2026, and has said he will not set a further schedule, including for any motion to dismiss or motion to strike, until he rules on where the case will be litigated.
TIMELINE
-
AUG 18, 2026PROCEDURALPublishers propose briefing schedule for motion to strikePlaintiffs submitted a joint letter proposing a briefing schedule for their anticipated motion to strike Meta’s affirmative defenses.
-
JUL 24, 2026PROCEDURALCourt adjourns conference and transfer argument to September 15, 2026Judge 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.
-
JUL 24, 2026PROCEDURALJudge Castel adjourns the initial conference and transfer argument to September 15, 2026
-
JUL 20, 2026PROCEDURALTransfer motion fully briefedBriefing on Meta and Zuckerberg’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California closed, including plaintiffs’ opposition supported by a declaration from Steven Rosenthal.
-
JUL 13, 2026FILINGMeta answers the complaint and raises affirmative defensesMeta filed its answer with a jury demand, raising affirmative defenses including copyright misuse and unclean hands, rather than moving to dismiss.
-
JUL 13, 2026FILINGMeta answers the complaint
-
JUN 26, 2026PROCEDURALMeta and Zuckerberg move to transfer case to N.D. Cal.Meta and Zuckerberg moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California to be coordinated with Kadrey v. Meta and related Meta AI-training litigation.
-
JUN 26, 2026FILINGMeta and Zuckerberg move to transfer the case to the Northern District of California
-
MAY 12, 2026PROCEDURALZuckerberg waives serviceMark Zuckerberg’s waiver of service was returned executed, setting his answer deadline for July 13, 2026.
-
MAY 7, 2026PROCEDURALMeta served with the complaintAffidavit of service filed showing Meta Platforms was served on May 7, 2026, with an answer due May 28, 2026 before the waiver extension.
-
MAY 6, 2026PROCEDURALInitial pretrial conference order enteredJudge Castel set an initial pretrial conference for June 29, 2026.
-
MAY 6, 2026PROCEDURALCourt sets initial pretrial conferenceJudge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order setting the initial pretrial conference in the case for June 29, 2026.
-
MAY 5, 2026FILINGPublishers and Scott Turow file class action complaintElsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill and author Scott Turow filed a putative class action in S.D.N.Y. accusing Meta and Mark Zuckerberg of willful copyright infringement in training the Llama AI models.