Cognella Inc v Meta Platforms Inc
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Cognella, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a copyright action filed May 4, 2026 in the Northern District of California. Cognella alleges that Meta copied its works from shadow libraries for Llama training and asserts direct and contributory copyright infringement and removal of copyright-management information.[2]
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]
October 19, 2026 discovery order
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson’s joint order addresses this action and four related Meta cases. The court granted Fox’s protective request concerning inadvertently produced unredacted licensing and negotiation documents, directing their destruction and relieving Fox and Meta of further unredacted production. Previously produced redacted versions remain available. The court weighed competitive harm and proportionality, rather than ruling that all licensing evidence was irrelevant.[5]
The order also resolves the Three Cs’ interrogatory motion filed in Chicken Soup (ECF 138). It requires Meta to answer concerning removal of copyright-management information, partly grants supplementation about downloaded works not used for training, and requires an explanation of how specified deleted data were acquired. It denies the other identified requests, including demands extending to every internal model iteration as disproportionate. The order notes that all Three Cs moved, although the motion was filed only in Chicken Soup.[5]
The separate directives to identify shadow-library and torrenting decisionmakers concern Entrepreneur Media’s interrogatories 22 and 23. They should be distinguished from the Three Cs’ requests. The order does not decide copyright liability, willfulness, the amount of any seeding or ultimate fair-use issues.[5]
See the joint discovery order in Kadrey for the case-specific disposition of additional disputes.
October 29, 2026 case-management conference
Judge Vince Chhabria’s October 29 minute entry permits Entrepreneur Media and the Three Cs—Chicken Soup, Cambronne/Carreyrou and Cognella—to file amended complaints by November 6, with initial copies sent to Meta by November 3. It sets a December 4 case-management statement deadline and a December 11 conference at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference. The permission to amend is distinct from an amended complaint actually being filed; later delivery, filings and the October 30 order have not been verified.[4]
Related articles and coverage
- Case tracker
- November 2, 2026 news coverage of the Meta proceedings
- October 20, 2026 news coverage of the October 19 order
- Chicken Soup for the Soul LLC v Meta Platforms Inc
- Carreyrou v Meta Platforms Inc
- Carreyrou/Cambronne v. Anthropic
- September 10, 2026 news coverage
- Cases
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 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).
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cognella v. Meta, No. 26-cv-04053, complaint filed May 4, 2026, ECF 1, paragraphs 1–3 and 94–109.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 N.D. Cal., discovery status-report order, September 10, 2026, pp. 1–2 (Entrepreneur Media ECF 150).
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 N.D. Cal., official minute entry for the October 29, 2026 case-management conferences before Judge Vince Chhabria, filed October 29, 2026; text-only court entry.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 N.D. Cal., joint discovery order, October 19, 2026, Kadrey ECF 874, pp. 1–10, addressing Nos. 23-cv-03417, 25-cv-09579, 26-cv-02333, 26-cv-03725 and 26-cv-04053.