A rare victory for a group of authors seems to have created a surge of new AI lawsuits across the nation. However, that lawsuit is far from over – and it seems as though the plaintiffs are just getting started. A judge has rejected a settlement that would have forced one of the biggest AI companies on the planet to hand over billions. Meanwhile, other plaintiffs are seemingly encouraged by this new “precedent,” and they are suing a host of other major tech companies in the United States. But is this billion–dollar settlement really a “precedent” in the true sense of the word? Has AI copyright law in the United States really turned a corner?

Judge Casts Doubt on $1.5 Billion Settlement

When news broke of a $1.5-billion settlement in an AI copyright lawsuit, most assumed that would be more than enough to resolve the case. However, the judge presiding over this case is not confident about the terms of the agreement. This judge issues various statements explaining his concerns, and the deal is apparently far from complete. 

So what is this judge so concerned about? First, he believes that the plaintiffs in this case may have been taken advantage of by lawyers and other “hangers on.” Specifically, he is worried that the deal has been “forced down the throats” of the authors. Although $1.5 billion might sound like a lot of money, it actually equates to a relatively pitiful sum for each author. Because there are 500,000 authors involved in this case, each one will receive only $3,000. 

Nevertheless, the judge noted that this settlement is bigger than any other in copyright history. While each author might receive relatively little, the payouts for the lawyers involved in this case could be massive. This is why the judge is concerned, and he is clearly going to make sure the authors get their fair share. 

It is also worth noting that the judge is pushing to give authors the option to opt out of this settlement. This means that individual authors could choose to pursue legal action against Anthropic, independent of the class action. If the case had gone to court, the AI company would have faced paying trillions in damages. 

Google Wins AI Lawsuit But Loses in Privacy Case

Also in September of 2025, Bloomberg Law reported that Google had won a “partial victory” in a similar AI training copyright lawsuit. The case involved 10 different AI models that were allegedly trained using human-created works. A judge in California concluded that the plaintiffs had not done enough to prove these AI models were trained on their creative works, and so she dismissed the claims against Google and Alphabet. 

However, the judge allowed certain infringement claims to move forward. Remember, this is exactly how the Anthropic case unfolded. At first, it seemed as though the AI company had won a victory – but the judge left a narrow opportunity for a claim based on piracy. This is what led to the $1.5 billion settlement. This “trimmed case” against Google could potentially lead to similar consequences. 

At around the same time, various sources reported that Google had lost a separate lawsuit related to privacy breaches. In this case, a federal court told the tech company that it must pay $425 million to resolve these claims. Users accused Google of tracking their data even after they had opted out. Google plans to appeal. 

Apple Faces AI Lawsuit

Apple is also facing an AI lawsuit, as CNET reported in September. Like so many other AI lawsuits in the modern era, this case also involves pirated books allegedly used to train Apple’s AI models. This lawsuit was filed on the same day Anthropic announced its $1.5 billion lawsuit, which would suggest some kind of connection. Is the Anthropic settlement making authors more confident about suing major tech companies like Apple? Could this be the beginning of a surge of similar AI lawsuits? 

One thing is clear: The trend in these new AI lawsuits is to focus on the piracy aspect, not the copyright infringement. Many judges have affirmed that using human-created material to train AI models falls under fair use. However, piracy is always illegal – regardless of how the works are used by AI companies. CNET notes that negotiating permission to use these libraries of digital works can be expensive, so many AI companies choose to access the files illegally instead. 

The plaintiffs allege that none of the authors who wrote these illegally accessed works were ever offered payment from Apple. Reuters reports that this case is part of a “wave” of similar lawsuits against AI companies, spurred by the Anthropic settlement.  

Warner Bros Files AI Lawsuit

Earlier in September, Warner Bros filed another AI lawsuit against Midjourney. The film production company alleges that Midjourney allows users to create videos of copyright-protected characters like superheroes and cartoon animals. Disney and Universal Studios are already in the process of suing Midjourney for similar alleged infringements. 

In response, the AI company argues that its activities constitute fair use. This is what many judges have concluded when presiding over similar cases. Unlike the other lawsuits that occurred in September, Warner Bros’ case does not seem to involve piracy. As a result, it could lack the same kind of edge as those that seek to emulate the Anthropic lawsuit. 

Discuss Recent Changes in AI Copyright Law With a Technology Lawyer

If you’re curious about how these new changes might affect your AI startup, consider speaking with an experienced technology lawyer. These legal professionals stay up-to-date on the latest and most notable cases in the country. Based on these new changes, you can adapt your company’s policies and procedures to remain compliant and avoid legal issues. The world of AI law is still very new, and it is changing very quickly. Discuss how these changes might affect your organization with John P. O’Brien.