Tech trade groups CTA and CCIA back Anthropic's appeal of a court ruling allowing a copyright class action, fearing big settlements could chill AI investment
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/ ... Their argument is apparently that that the legality of their business model should not be questioned because AI is too important. Lili Saintcrow / @lilithsaintcrow.com : It's a bit baffling. The whole thrust of the article seems to be, “Oh, yes, these techbro bastards stole from thousands of writers and artists, they admit the egregious theft, they glory in it, continue it, but we can't possibly expect them to suffer any CONSEQUENCES for it! Perish the thought!” Lili Saintcrow / @lilithsaintcrow.com : Normally I would take a salient quote from this article, add the link, and let it go. But in this case, I'm a bit stunned at the underlying assumption in this piece that Anthropic is a poor wee babe deserving of special protection and excuse for outright, open, ongoing thievery. Nash / @radiodeadair.com : I've mentioned this repeatedly, but Fair Use is an affirmative defense. — You affirm that you did indeed violate copyright, but based on the accepted definitions of fair use you feel as though you can prove your use case was legal. — I don't think “We wanted to do this but not pay anybody” will work. Nash / @radiodeadair.com : The crux of their argument is that if they're found liable, then the consequences of their own actions that no one forced them to take could ruin them and the rest of their industry that undertakes similar practices. — To which I say motherfucker did you never hear about Napster Martin Paul Eve / @eve.gd : There's a very interesting thread of this, in that it's been ruled legal/fair use to train if you scan a hard copy and then destroy it, but a copyright violation if you pirate a digital edition. The physical retains first sale doctrine ownership. Digital, not. — arstechnica.com/tech-policy/ ... X: Gary Shapiro / @garyshapiro : America is in a global race to lead in AI, but a wave of opportunistic lawsuits threatens to strangle innovation. That's why @CTATech joined a Ninth Circuit amicus brief against class certification in an AI case. The threat of mandatory statutory damages would bring unbearable @ccianet : CCIA has joined @TechNetUpdate and other pro-innovation organizations in an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the @US9thCircuit in Bartz v. Anthropic. The ruling risks enabling abusive litigation & stifling #AI innovation. Read more: https://buff.ly/e41CyxH [image] Forums: Hacker News : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified r/BetterOffline : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified r/LabourUK : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified r/antiai : AI industry is rightfully being sued r/artificial : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified (up to 7 million claimants) | Ars Technica r/law : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified r/technology : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified Beehaw : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified BeauHD / Slashdot : AI Industry Horrified To Face Largest Copyright Class Action Ever Certified Ars OpenForum : AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The appeal follows a June ruling that treated Anthropic’s use of copyrighted books for training differently from its retention of pirated copies in a central library, creating a sharper dispute over which parts of AI data practices create exposure: the split ruling on training and pirated-book storage.
Earlier coverage framed AI copyright suits as both a test of copyright doctrine and potential leverage for licensing agreements. The trade groups’ intervention brings the prospective cost of class-wide damages to the center of that debate.
First-order effects
- CTA and CCIA are formally supporting Anthropic’s Ninth Circuit effort to overturn class certification, adding industry backing to a case that could otherwise proceed on behalf of a broader group of copyright claimants.
- Anthropic faces continued litigation uncertainty over the certified class, while the groups argue that mandatory statutory damages could make the potential liability materially larger.
Second-order effects
- The brief gives other AI developers a coordinated legal position against class certification in training-data cases, rather than leaving each company to litigate the issue independently.
- Rights holders gain another signal that court procedure—not only the fair-use merits—can shape bargaining power; earlier coverage identified lawsuits as possible leverage for more favorable AI licensing deals.
Third-order effects
- If courts permit copyright claims over AI training data to proceed as classes, litigation risk could become a more consequential constraint on how developers acquire and retain training material; if appeals narrow certification, disputes may shift more toward individual claims and negotiated licenses.
- The case illustrates an emerging split between arguments that training is protected use and arguments focused on the provenance and storage of source material, as in Anthropic’s earlier fair-use and piracy-storage ruling.
The trend: AI copyright disputes are increasingly turning on procedural leverage and data provenance alongside the underlying question of whether model training is fair use.