Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Through the ADventures in Law Blog, BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team provides updates and analysis on legal issues and trends in the advertising and marketing industry.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ADventures in Law Blog</a> site for more and to subscribe!

ADventures in Law

The Antitrust Advocate blog provides insights and commentary surrounding complex antitrust litigation and trade regulation. It’s presented by members of BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Competition Team.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.antitrustadvocate.com/">Antitrust Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Antitrust Advocate

BakerHostetler’s Blockchain Monitor is a weekly blog curated and written by members of our Web3 and Digital Assets team. Published every Monday, the blog is dedicated to providing our clients, friends and industry contacts with a concise weekly update of key developments in the fast-paced blockchain industry. By subscribing below you will receive the blog in your email inbox every Monday afternoon.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.theblockchainmonitor.com/">Blockchain Monitor</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Blockchain Monitor

Commentary addressing risks and opportunities through the life cycle of data, technology, advertising and innovation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.bakerdatacounsel.com/">Data Counsel</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Data Counsel

The Discovery Advocate blog is presented by members of BakerHostetler’s E-Discovery Advocacy and Management Team (EDAM).  Today’s modern discovery practice requires a practical approach backed by specialized expertise; Discovery Advocate examines the developments and trends that impact today’s litigants in the trenches of litigation and beyond.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.discoveryadvocate.com/">Discovery Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Discovery Advocate

The Employment Law Spotlight blog is written by attorneys of our national Labor and Employment Group, with an eye toward helping employers avoid litigation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/">Employment Law Spotlight</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Employment Law Spotlight

BakerHostetler is at the forefront of national law firms providing clients involved in every facet of healthcare delivery across the country with comprehensive legal counsel of remarkable responsiveness, creativity, quality and value.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.healthlawupdate.com/">Health Law Update</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Health Law Update

In today’s global economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, domain names and other intellectual property (IP) are among the most valuable assets of market leaders and rising businesses.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/">IP Intelligence Report</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

IP Intelligence Report

Updates from Capitol Hill.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ohioclock.com/">Ohio Clock</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Ohio Clock

The Bargaining Table blog is written by attorneys of BakerHostetler’s Labor Relations team, with an eye toward helping employers manage their unionized workforces.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/">Bargaining Table</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

The Bargaining Table

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

2025 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

2025 DSIR Report Deeper Dive

32nd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

33rd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

Join us for AD Nauseam, an AdLaw podcast series featuring Amy Mudge and Daniel Kaufman, partners from our Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team. Together, they have decades of advertising experience and share their insights on trending legal issues in the advertising space, with an emphasis on the FTC and NAD developments.

AD Nauseam

AD-ttorneys@law

The use of noncompetes is now shifting across the country. Many states are limiting the use of noncompetes. Several states have enacted or are considering prohibitions on noncompetes. Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission is engaging in a rulemaking that could ban noncompete agreements between employers and employees. What does all of this mean for your business? Are there alternatives to noncompetes that can protect your business?

To help bring all this into focus, we’ve created a three-part series called “Alternatives to Noncompetes.”

Alternatives to Noncompetes

BakerHostetler Blockchain University

BakerHosts

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2024

Celebrating Black Voices at BakerHostetler

Since the recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, companies have been impacted nationwide and have several new legal angles to consider as it relates to their employees and their businesses. With that in mind, we’ve created a new podcast series, Dobbs on Demand, designed to help you navigate this new and evolving landscape.

Dobbs on Demand

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2022

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2023

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2024

Estate and Tax Planning for Globally Mobile Clients

MDLephant: What's Big in MDL Litigation?

Promoting the Progress of Science

Rev Up!

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs

The Cloakroom podcast series brings you inside Capitol Hill with insightful interviews and discussions with leading lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. Hosted by former Congressman Peter Roskam, who leads BakerHostetler’s Federal Policy team, you’ll hear firsthand about the latest policy debates on taxes, healthcare, energy, financial services and more.
Subscribe to The Cloakroom
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam-bakerhosts/id1759425935" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apple Podcast</a> | <a href="https://www.amazon.com/music/player/podcasts/bdb139af-518d-469a-998b-ea9b49fafd93/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam---bakerhosts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Music</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7LfpZdBC0OA2jyVjgVXNFF?si=de8f473382704494" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spotify</a>

The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam

The Data Economy and You

The Data Stream

The Emerging New Era for Noncompetes and Trade Secrets

The Now and Next in International Trade

The State Tax Show

Wait, what?

Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions

core/button

core/buttons

core/heading

Author plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Anthropic alleging Anthropic infringed their copyrights by using their copyrighted books to train its Claude LLMs.

core/paragraph

On September 25, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement.

Case Background

Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 3:24-cv-05417

Court:&nbsp;Northern District of California

Judges:&nbsp;Judge William Alsup

Plaintiffs – Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, Kirk Wallace Johnson, and MJ + KJ, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, represented by Susman Godfrey L.L.P and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &amp; Bernstein, LLP

Defendant – Anthropic PBC, represented by Arnold &amp; Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Latham and Watkins LLP

contentpilot/accordion

Status Updates

Sept. 22 - 25, 2025 – Settlement Hearing

On September 22, plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, arguing that the settlement “provides an extraordinary monetary recovery to the class, releases only certain past claims, and requires the permanent destruction of the two allegedly pirated datasets.” The hearing was held on September 25, where the court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement, preliminary approval to the plan of distribution, and preliminary approval to the plan for notice.

Sept. 5, 2025 – Parties filed unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement

The parties filed a proposed settlement agreement. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle claims that it downloaded pirated books to train its AI systems—the largest U.S. copyright settlement in history. This sum would amount to an estimated gross recovery of $3,000 per infringed work. Anthropic agreed to also destroy the LibGen and PiLiMi datasets after the expiration of any litigation preservation or other court orders. The plaintiffs’ award is in exchange for releasing Anthropic of claims concerning conduct up to August 25, 2025. This settlement does not cover or concern any claims (past or future) arising out of allegedly infringing outputs from Anthropic’s AI models or claims arising out of conduct after August 25, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The court hearing for the motion was scheduled for September 8, but Judge Alsup signaled his discomfort with the proposal in his September 7 order regarding the hearing [ECF 364], stating that he “is disappointed that counsel have left important questions to be answered in the future,” including a list of works covered by the deal and the processes for notifying potential class members. The court delayed approving the motion until at earliest, October 10, so that the court can receive input from the Author-Publisher Working Group, which will then face challenges by Anthropic.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Aug. 26, 2025 – Parties filed notice of proposed class-wide settlement

After the August 19 mediation, the Parties have reached a class-wide settlement and requested staying discovery. Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for preliminary settlement approval by September 5, and anticipate requesting a hearing on that motion during the week of September 8.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The court ordered that both sides file a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement by September 5 for a September 8 hearing.

July 17, 2025 – Court granted class certification for the LibGen &amp; PiLiMi Pirated Books Class

In reviewing the class certification, Judge Alsup assessed the practicality of identifying the millions of books downloaded by Anthropic from pirate libraries and matching them to their respective copyright owner(s). Plaintiffs moved to certify classes of copyright owners in a “Pirated Books Class” (the Books3 Pirated Books Class and LibGen &amp; PiLiMi Pirated Books Class) and in a “Scanned Books Class.” This order certifies only the LibGen &amp; PiLiMi Pirated Books Class, which is limited to actual or beneficial owners of timely registered copyrights in ISBN/ASIN-bearing books downloaded by Anthropic from these two pirate libraries, who further have copyright interest under Section 106(1), i.e., the right to make reproductions. Judge Alsup is specific to express that the class certification is “to cover everyone who owns the specific copyright interest in play, the right to make copies, either as the actual or as the beneficial owner.” His reason for not certifying the Books3 Pirated Books Class is that the books downloaded as part of Books3 came with fewer fields of metadata and less routinely complete files of content, such that the identification of titles and authors would be too problematic. The order also denied certification for a Scanned Books Class.&nbsp;

June 23, 2025 – Court granted summary judgment for Anthropic on its fair use argument related to training Claude and digitizing books but denied summary judgment on piracy

On June 23, 2025, the court found two of Anthropic’s accused activities were fair use: (1) training Claude on plaintiffs’ books (describing such acts as “exceedingly transformative” and (2) digitizing purchased print books.&nbsp; On the other hand, the court found that Anthropic was not entitled to use pirated copies for its central library, such that creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself fair use.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Judge Alsup focused on the transformative nature of generative AI. He stated that the purpose and character of using works to train LLMs was “spectacularly” transformative. Notably, this case focused only on training inputs, not AI outputs, and Judge Alsup suggested that if the authors had claimed that the training led to “infringing knockoffs” generated using Claude, his ruling may have been different.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Judge Alsup found that any potential market harm would be no different than the harm caused by using the works for “training schoolchildren to write well,” which could “result in an explosion of competing works.” Judge Alsup stated that training “is not the kind of competitive or creative displacement that concerns the Copyright Act.”&nbsp;

In his discussion of Anthropic’s digitization of books purchased in print form to build a central library, Judge Alsup pinpointed plaintiffs’ issue to be that Anthropic changed each copy’s format from print to digital, but he explained that the format change itself “added no new copies, eased storage and enabled searchability, and was not done for purposes trenching upon the copyright owner’s rightful interests.” Thus, “the digital copy should be treated just as if the purchased print copy had been placed in the central library.”&nbsp;

The court also concluded, “Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.”&nbsp;

March 27 – April 25, 2025: Anthropic filed motion for summary judgment

Anthropic’s Motion. On March 27, 2025, Anthropic moved for summary judgment that its use of plaintiffs’ copyrighted books as training data for Claude was “quintessential” fair use. Anthropic emphasized that copyright law does not give plaintiffs “the right to prevent Anthropic from making copies in order to study plaintiffs’ writing, extract uncopyrightable information from it, and use what it learned to create revolutionary technology that itself does entirely new things.”&nbsp;

Under the first fair use factor, Anthropic argued that its use was highly transformative (overcoming its commercial purpose) because making intermediate copies of plaintiffs’ copyrighted books in order to train an LLM served a fundamentally different purpose from the books themselves and did not deprive plaintiffs of a market for the books. Anthropic explained that “[a]ssembling the datasets, tokenizing it, studying the interrelationships among the tokens, and using the information gleaned from those interrelationships to create an LLM exemplifies literal transformation,” as the LLM itself is not a repository of copies of plaintiffs’ books or other training materials. Further, Anthropic argued, Claude served a different purpose than plaintiffs’ books, adding new utility because Claude is “clearly something new” assisting humans “across myriad fields’ and “enabling its end users to drive innovation in countless new ways.” Anthropic distinguished <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/thomson-reuters-v-ross/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence</a> as involving a non-generative AI tool serving a similar purpose as the copyrighted works at issue there.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Under the second factor, Anthropic argued that although plaintiffs’ books were creative, they were also published and widely available such that this factor (in the context of Anthropic’s highly transformative use) also favors fair use.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Under the third factor, Anthropic argued that its wholesale copying of plaintiffs’ books was necessary for Anthropic’s highly transformative purpose of training Claude, causing this factor to likewise favor fair use.&nbsp;

Under the fourth factor, Anthropic challenged plaintiffs’ theory of market harm—that Anthropic’s transformative use deprived plaintiffs of licensing revenue for that use—as “circular.” Anthropic explained that binding caselaw held that economic harm caused by transformative uses (e.g., lost licensing fees) do not “count” under this factor because those uses do not serve as market substitutes for the original work. Further, Anthropic contended that its use caused no harm to existing, traditional markets by which plaintiffs exploit their books (e.g., selling copies to the public) and that no market for licensing copyrighted works as training data LLMs exists and plausibly could exist due to various considerations, including the prohibitive costs of licensing millions of copyrighted works and other practical impediments. And to the extent any potential market harm does exist, Anthropic argued that the public benefit provided by Claude outweighed such harm.&nbsp;

Plaintiffs’ Opposition. On April 25, 2025, plaintiffs opposed Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment [122] on its fair use affirmative defense. Plaintiffs emphasized that courts have consistently rejected fair use defenses of piracy, and that the purpose of Anthropic’s piracy was to avoid purchasing lawful copies, which is commercial and not transformative. Plaintiffs argued that Anthropic has made no effort to meet its burden to establish its piracy has not harmed the book sale market.

March 27 – April 17, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On March 27, 2025, plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23, with their proposed classes including a broad “books class,” including all registered copyright holders whose books were using by Anthropic in LLM training, as well as a narrower “pirated books class” (and alternative dataset-specific classes if the “pirated books class” was not certified) focused on rightsholders of books downloaded by Anthropic from illegal websites.

Plaintiffs argued their proposed classes satisfy Rule 23 and that a class action is superior to individual actions. Plaintiffs explained that because Anthropic acquired books through common methods, used them in a common manner, and needed them for a common reason, Anthropic’s conduct infringed either all or none of the copyrights owned by members of each proposed class. As examples of common issues, plaintiffs listed (1) whether and how Anthropic obtained, copied, and stored books; (2) the nature of Anthropic’s use of books in its LLMs; (3) whether Anthropic’s conduct was fair use; (4) whether Anthropic’s conduct was willful; and (5) the nature of damages suffered by the proposed classes. Further, plaintiffs argued that their copyright infringement claims were typical of the proposed classes’ claims. Finally, plaintiffs explained that it would be impractical and inefficient for individual rightsholders to litigate the same issues in separate actions.

On April 17, 2025, Anthropic opposed plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, contending that plaintiffs’ proposed classes failed to satisfy Rule 23. Anthropic argued that individual issues of copyright ownership and validity, infringement, and remedies will predominate. Anthropic explained that book-by-book evidence is required to provide copyright ownership and validity, noting that mere registrations are insufficient evidence and ownership is often a litigated issue even in cases where a single copyright is at issue. Anthropic explained further that the infringement and fair use analyses require individualized proof, and that plaintiffs failed to provide a class-wide model for determining actual damages, statutory damages, or disgorgement of profits. Anthropic also argued that the proposed classes were not ascertainable because there was no practical or reliable way to identify each of the books at issue, much less link each work to the correct rightsholders.

Finally, Anthropic argued that a class action is not superior to individual actions by rightsholders (given that individual issues will predominate), and that plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives because many rightsholders use LLMs and thus do not object to the use of their works in LLM training.

Dec. 18, 2024 – Anthropic answered

In its answer, Anthropic denied it was liable for copyright infringement. Anthropic admitted that it used portions of the Pile to train certain Claude models. Anthropic raised affirmative defenses including failure to state a claim, fair use, volitional conduct, lack of standing, works not protectable by copyright, de minimis copying, lack of injury, waiver, equitable doctrines (waiver, estoppel, and laches), implied/express license, unavailability of injunctive relief, innocent infringement, unconstitutional damages, and statute of limitations.

Dec. 4, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed amended complaint

Plaintiffs amended their complaint only to include another plaintiff.

Aug. 19, 2024 – Class action complaint filed against Anthropic

In their putative class action complaint authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson alleged that Anthropic included their copyrighted books in the dataset used to train Claude’s LLMs. The complaint sets forth one cause of action: direct copyright infringement.

Select Court Documents 

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-1-Complaint-3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 19, 2024 – ECF 1 Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-70-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dec. 4, 2024 – ECF 70 Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-72-Answer-Bartz.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dec. 18, 2024 – ECF 72 Answer</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/122.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 27, 2025 – ECF 122 Anthropic’s Motion for Summary Judgment</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/125.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 27, 2025 – ECF 125 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/148.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 17, 2025 – ECF 148 Anthropic’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/164.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 25, 2025 – ECF 164 Plaintiffs’ Redacted Opposition to Anthropic’s Summary Judgement Motion [122]</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ECF-231-Order-on-Fair-Use.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 23, 2025 – 231 Order on Fair Use</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ECF-244-Order-on-Class-Certification.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 17, 2025 – ECF 244 Order on Class Certification</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ECF-354.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 26, 2025 – ECF 354 Notice of Settlement</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ECF-355.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 26, 2025 – ECF 355 Order Re: Settlement</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ECF-363.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 5, 2025 – ECF 363 Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ECF-364.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 7, 2025 – ECF 364 Order Re: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ECF-401-Supplemental-Brief-ISO-Motion-for-Settlement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 22, 2025 – ECF 401 Supplemental Brief ISO Motion for Settlement</a>