On the heels of a multi-billion-dollar settlement, AI giant Anthropic is facing yet another copyright lawsuit, this time from those who own the copyrights to the Elvis Presley musical empire. This comes at a time when there is serious doubt about the long-term financial stability of the AI industry as a whole. Although a multi-billion-dollar settlement might seem like a tremendous amount of money, this is actually just a small portion of the debt that Anthropic is currently carrying. Similar AI titans are facing almost identical situations. Nevertheless, lawsuits such as these are undoubtedly helping to create an extremely skeptical sentiment among investors. To learn more about the current legal landscape of AI, consider speaking with a technology lawyer in the United States.

Anthropic Accused of Training Its Models on Elvis Songs Without Permission

In an echo of so many similar lawsuits in the past, Anthropic is once again facing legal action for training its models on copyrighted material without permission. This time, the holders of intellectual property associated with Elvis Presley are suing. Some sources have reported that the plaintiff in this case is the late Mr. Presley’s “estate,” but it is actually a collection of corporate copyright holders. The Presley family sold the vast majority of his intellectual property catalog to investors in the 90s.

The lawsuit’s claims are twofold: First, the plaintiffs allege that Anthropic trained its models on songs performed by Presley without permission. Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that Anthropic’s AI products generate songs that are effectively carbon copies of the original tracks. The lawsuit points out that the generated songs feature identical hooks, choruses, and other elements while leaving entire sections of lyrics completely unaltered.

The copyright holders are seeking about $41 million in damages. On all accounts, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the company’s earlier $1.5-billion settlement. However, admitting defeat in this relatively small case could open up the floodgates of similar lawsuits from all corners of the entertainment and artistic worlds.

The $1.5-billion settlement made headlines in July, signaling a rare loss for AI companies in court. Earlier, a judge presiding over the case had indicated that generating AI “renditions” of copyrighted works was fair use. However, the same judge then took a completely different stance on the question of piracy. While the generated works might be fair use, the initial download and use of the copyrighted material without permission was blatant, straightforward piracy according to the judge.

One would assume that the same basic logic would apply to this recent Elvis case. The fact that Anthropic appears to have accessed a library of Elvis tracks without permission could be equivalent to piracy. However, the plaintiffs could go one step further and achieve success where others have failed. Because the songs are allegedly so close to the originals, the generated works may also constitute copyright violations.

Whatever the case may be, tech companies don’t have to wait much longer before Elvis’ music falls into the public domain, becoming free for anyone to access. He released his first songs in 1954, and copyright law only provides 100 years of protection in the United States. On the other hand, similar protections only last about 70 years in Europe.

The Real Legal Threat Stems From Shaky Financials

A $1.5-billion settlement would destroy most companies, but Anthropic seems to have completely shrugged it off. When you take a closer look at the company’s financials, this attitude is self-explanatory. With a net loss of over $80 billion during the first half of 2026, it’s clear that Anthropic has more important matters to focus on. Despite Claude generating billions in profits, the financial realities of the AI industry are starting to become difficult to ignore. The cost of building up the data centers that power these AI tools is simply on another level.

What makes this worse is the fact that very few of these tools are actually profitable. Despite Claude’s revenue reaching over $16 billion in 2026, the costs clearly outweigh the profits. Investors have waited quite a while for AI to become profitable, but it hasn’t reached that point yet. And with more and more people asking Gemini, Claude, and Grok all manner of mundane questions with every passing second, the demand for more infrastructure is ever-expanding.

In other words, Anthropic has no choice but to keep buying data centers to keep the bubble afloat, but it’s not really profitable, and investors are starting to find out. Various observers have accused Anthropic of concealing these financial realities with complex, back-and-forth transfers or loans (often dubbed “round-tripping”). But with its public S-1 paperwork filed on October 26th, 2026, Anthropic will soon become a publicly traded company.

An IPO signals that the public market is the only remaining source of cash, now that private investors have walked away. The downside is that the company will now be forced to wash its dirty laundry in public.

Not only that, but shareholders could sue Anthropic in the future for “AI washing” and misleading investors. The company is also locked into hundreds of billions in spending on data centers over the next ten years, and this could also trigger a wave of breach-of-contract lawsuits if the money dries up. With all of this in mind, it is safe to say that the Elvis Presley lawsuit is the least of Anthropic’s worries.

Can a Technology Lawyer in the United States Help Me?

After the $1.5-billion Anthropic settlement, it is fair to say that there is “blood in the water.” Attracted by the prospect of eye-watering compensation, other parties are circling. However, the copyright lawsuits that are currently plaguing so many AI companies represent a mere side story to the bigger narrative of foundational financial weakness. After years of innovation, it still isn’t exactly clear where the actual profits are coming from. New AI startups need to be wary of legal compliance, but perhaps an even greater priority is ensuring that the company actually generates profits. After all, financial uncertainty can trigger just as many lawsuits as copyright issues, if not more. Continue this discussion with a US technology lawyer like John P. O’Brien. You can contact our firm at (732)-219-6641 or visit us online.