Concord Music Group Inc v Anthropic PBC (2026)
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al. is a separate 2026 music-publisher copyright action, commonly distinguished here as Concord II. It concerns alleged acquisition and distribution of musical compositions through BitTorrent and alleged copying in later Claude training and outputs. It is distinct from the earlier action, No. 5:24-cv-03811-EKL.[1]
May 21, 2026 second amended complaint
The publishers allege that Anthropic and its founders obtained books containing licensed sheet music and lyrics from LibGen and Pirate Library Mirror, and that downloading through BitTorrent also distributed copies to other users. They identify 714 compositions for the torrenting allegations. Separately, they identify 20,517 compositions for claims concerning training and outputs of later Claude models. These are two pleaded groups and theories; the complaint does not establish that every alleged acquisition was used for commercial model training.[1]
The second amended complaint contains direct-infringement claims for torrenting against all defendants and for training and outputs against Anthropic, a contributory-infringement claim concerning torrenting against Amodei and Mann, and a copyright-management-information claim against Anthropic. It alleges that training-data extraction and output generation removed identifying information. The publishers seek statutory damages or actual damages and profits, injunctive relief, an accounting, destruction of infringing copies, and fees and costs. These are allegations and requested remedies, rather than findings of infringement or awards.[1]
November 4 hearing and November 6 order
Judge Eumi K. Lee’s November 6 order records that the court heard Amodei’s and Anthropic’s dismissal motions on November 4. It granted Amodei’s motion with leave to attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies. It did not resolve Anthropic’s motion and instead required the parties to continue meeting and conferring.[2]
The court questioned the factual basis for the output portion of Count II. The publishers’ opposition conveyed that all 20,517 compositions allegedly used for training were reproduced in outputs. The court said the complaint did not allege a single specific output involving those works or even a user prompt requesting their lyrics. Counsel’s reliance on information-and-belief pleading at the hearing differed from how the allegations and briefing presented the issue, and the court questioned whether the relevant information was exclusively within Anthropic’s possession.[2]
The order refers to Rule 11’s requirements for factual representations, but does not impose sanctions or decide that the alleged training is lawful. It extends the status-report deadline to November 13, 2026. The publishers need not file an amended complaint concerning Amodei until Anthropic’s dismissal motion is resolved.[2]
Related coverage
- Concord I: earlier lyrics action
- Bartz v Anthropic PBC
- Anthropic
- Copyright cases directory
- Original November 7 news coverage
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 Second amended complaint, ECF 93, May 21, 2026, pp. 1–47
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Judge Lee, order regarding motion-to-dismiss hearing and meet and confer, ECF 141, November 6, 2026, pp. 1–3
- ↑ Original complaint, ECF 1, January 28, 2026, filing stamp and signature, pp. 1, 48