Skip to content
Compute Docket

Case file · N.D. Cal.

Bartz v. Anthropic PBC

N.D. Cal. Docket 4:24-cv-05417-AMO

Read the primary source

Record reviewed

Case posture

As alleged in the complaint (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–3, 68–71) [§ 51], the individual authors contended that Anthropic infringed their copyrights under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501 by downloading pirated books and reproducing them to train Claude. As stated by the court in its June 23, 2025 summary-judgment order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (ECF No. 231, at 31) [§ 100], the district court granted Anthropic summary judgment that the training use and the print-to-digital conversion of purchased books were fair uses under 17 U.S.C. § 107, but denied summary judgment for Anthropic on whether the pirated library copies had to be treated as training copies. As stated in the final approval order and judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (ECF No. 680, at 4, 22–23) [§ 153], the court granted final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement and entered judgment on July 20, 2026. According to the court docket (ECF Nos. 682–683) [§ 150], two coordination counsel groups filed notices of appeal in August 2026.

Why it matters

As stated by the court in its summary-judgment order (ECF No. 231, at 10–11, 29–31) [§ 101], the fair-use analysis treated training copies, purchased print-to-digital copies, and pirated central-library copies as distinct uses. As stated by the court in the same order (ECF No. 231, at 7, 31–32) [§ 102], the holdings were limited to the summary-judgment record and did not resolve all copying or output-related claims.

Decisions on the record

Related rulings

02 published

  1. N.D. Cal.

    Final approval of class settlement and judgment

    Reviewed

    Holding or outcome

    As stated in the final approval order and judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (ECF No. 680, at 4, 7, 14, 22–23) [§ 154], the court granted final approval of the $1.5 billion class settlement, overruled the objections, and dismissed the action and all Released Claims with prejudice. As stated by the court in the same order (ECF No. 680, at 1, 19–23) [§ 155], it granted in part the motion for attorney’s fees, reimbursement of expenses, and plaintiff service awards, and retained jurisdiction over settlement implementation, enforcement, and administration. As stated by the court in its release analysis (ECF No. 680, § I.C, at 7) [§ 156], the release covers claims as to works on the Works List but does not release claims about AI outputs or future conduct.

    Reasoning

    As stated by the court in its analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (ECF No. 680, at 6, 21) [§ 109], the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the class representatives and class counsel had adequately represented the class, and the settlement treated class members equitably. As stated by the court (ECF No. 680, at 4–6, 21) [§ 110], its reasoning relied on the non-reversionary fund, the claims and distribution process, the risks of further litigation, and the class response. As stated by the court in its Works List analysis (ECF No. 680, at 9–10) [§ 111], claims arising from works not on the Works List are preserved and unaffected by the settlement.

    Ruling sources (2)
    1. Final approval order and judgment, ECF No. 680 (2026-07-20) (external link)

      Court orderCourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 109–111

      Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 680, at 1–23 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)

    2. Docket entry 680 (external link)

      DocketCourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record § 152

      Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 680 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)

  2. N.D. Cal.

    Order on fair use

    Reviewed

    Holding or outcome

    The court ruling on Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (ECF No. 231, at 8–9, 31) [§ 103]: the district court held that using the books at issue to train Claude and its predecessor large language models was fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that converting purchased print books into digital library copies was also fair use. As stated by the court in the same order (ECF No. 231, at 31) [§ 104], it denied summary judgment for Anthropic on whether pirated copies used to build the central library had to be treated as training copies, leaving that issue and resulting damages for trial. As stated by the court (ECF No. 231, at 31–32) [§ 105], the order did not grant summary judgment on other copies made from central-library copies for non-training uses.

    Reasoning

    As stated by the court in its summary-judgment analysis (ECF No. 231, at 9, 11) [§ 106], the training use was exceedingly transformative and the authors did not allege infringing Claude outputs. As stated by the court (ECF No. 231, at 30–31) [§ 107], conversion of purchased print books was fair use when the print copies were destroyed and their digital replacements were not redistributed. As stated by the court (ECF No. 231, at 31) [§ 108], retaining pirated copies as a permanent, general-purpose library was a separate use requiring its own justification and, on the summary-judgment record, all four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107 weighed against that library use.

    Ruling sources (2)
    1. Order on fair use, ECF No. 231 (2025-06-23) (external link)

      Court orderCourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 103–108

      Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 231, at 1–32 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)

    2. Docket entry 231 (external link)

      DocketCourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record § 151

      Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 231 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)

Read the record

Case sources

Direct documents and docket references, grouped with court records first.

Court orders and opinions(2)

  1. Final approval order and judgment, ECF No. 680 (2026-07-20) (external link)

    CourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 153–157

    Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 680, at 1–23 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)

  2. Order on fair use, ECF No. 231 (2025-06-23) (external link)

    CourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 100–102

    Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 231, at 1–32 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)

Party filings(1)

  1. Class action complaint, ECF No. 1 (2024-08-19) (external link)

    CourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 50–51

    Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–3, 68–74 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024)

Dockets(1)

  1. District court docket (external link)

    CourtListener/RECAPAccessed Claim record §§ 150–160

    Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO (N.D. Cal.), docket reviewed Oct. 29, 2026