Jump to content

Carreyrou v Meta Platforms Inc

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Carreyrou / Cambronne, Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California[1]
Docket 3:26-cv-03725-VC (TSH)[1]
Filed April 29, 2026 (separate Meta action opened after severance)[2]
Judge(s) Vince Chhabria (district judge); Thomas S. Hixson (discovery magistrate judge)[3]
Plaintiffs John Carreyrou et al. in the nonparty-discovery order; Cambronne, Inc. et al. in the status-report order[1][3]
Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.; OpenAI and Anthropic are nonparties to the September 10 subpoena disputes[1]
Case type Civil copyright action[1]
Claims / issues Copyright and AI training; nonparty discovery concerning Meta’s asserted fair-use defense[1]
Status September 10, 2026: motions to compel OpenAI and Anthropic denied. This discovery order does not decide the underlying copyright claims.[1]

Carreyrou / Cambronne, Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the separate Meta copyright action opened April 29, 2026 after severance from the original multi-defendant Carreyrou/Cambronne action.[2] The September 10 nonparty-discovery order uses John Carreyrou in its caption; the same day's status-report order uses Cambronne, Inc. for the same docket, No. 26-cv-03725.[1][3]

On September 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the plaintiffs’ motions to compel nonparties OpenAI and Anthropic in this and two other Meta actions. The order resolves those subpoena disputes, not the merits of the copyright claims.[1]

September 10, 2026 discovery ruling

The plaintiffs sought documents and corporate testimony on literary-output capabilities, book licensing and torrenting practices to support their arguments concerning Meta’s fair-use defense. The requests included ChatGPT and Claude model evidence.[1]

Hixson found that the plaintiffs had not adequately connected the other companies’ model capabilities to Meta’s alleged market harm, given differences in product development. He also found the requests too broad in light of their uncertain relevance. For licensing discovery, he applied the reasoning discussed in Kadrey and Bartz. The torrenting requests likewise failed on relevance and proportionality grounds.[1]

In a separate September 10 status-report order, Hixson identified September 11 as the deadline for fact-discovery motions and permitted parties to submit their own portion of a discovery letter if the opponent did not cooperate. He stated that only District Judge Chhabria could grant Meta’s requested extension to September 18 for a motion against Cognella. That order did not itself grant the extension.[3]

Relationship to the Anthropic action

The original docket records an April 27, 2026 order severing Meta and the opening of the separate Meta action two days later. Developments in this Meta docket should be distinguished from proceedings against Anthropic in No. 25-cv-10897.[2]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 N.D. Cal., discovery order in Nos. 26-cv-02333, 26-cv-03725 and 26-cv-04053, September 10, 2026, pp. 1–9 (Chicken Soup ECF 131).
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 N.D. Cal., Carreyrou/Cambronne v. Anthropic et al., No. 25-cv-10897, docket entries for April 27 and April 29, 2026, reproduced by Justia.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 N.D. Cal., discovery status-report order, September 10, 2026, pp. 1–2 (Entrepreneur Media ECF 150).
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Carreyrou_v_Meta_Platforms_Inc&oldid=4480"