Jump to content

Elsevier Inc v Meta Platforms Inc

From AI Law Wiki

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

Case Information
Case name Elsevier Inc v. Meta Platforms Inc[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (transferred from the Southern District of New York).[2]
Docket 3:26-cv-11415-VC (October 29 minute entry); earlier California intake No. 4:26-cv-11415; formerly 1:26-cv-03689-PKC (New York).[2][3]
Filed May 5, 2026[1]
Judge(s) Vince Chhabria (California; October 29 conference); P. Kevin Castel (former New York presiding judge)[3][4]
Plaintiffs Elsevier Inc.; Cengage Learning, Inc.; Hachette Book Group, Inc.; Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC; McGraw Hill LLC; Scott Turow; S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc.[1]
Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg[1]
Case type Proposed civil class action[1]
Claims / issues Direct and contributory copyright infringement; DMCA § 1202(b) copyright-management-information claims[1]
Status October 29, 2026 initial case-management conference held before Vince Chhabria; parties directed to propose a briefing schedule, with a December 4 statement and December 11 further conference; later changes not verified.[3]

Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms Inc. is a proposed copyright class action filed in federal court in New York by author Scott Turow and publishers Cengage, Elsevier, Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill against Meta Platforms and Mark Zuckerberg over alleged use of copyrighted works to train Meta's Llama AI models.[5][6]


Allegations

The plaintiffs allege that Meta scraped, torrented, and downloaded unauthorized copies of millions of copyrighted works from alleged pirate sites to develop and operate the Llama generative AI system.[6] They also allege that Meta removed copyright-management information to obscure use of the works in AI training and that Llama can reproduce versions of books, journal articles, and textbooks or imitate authorial styles.[5]

Relief Sought

The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that Meta's practices violate the Copyright Act, injunctive relief barring future infringement, monetary damages, and an accounting of Meta's training materials and methods.[6]

Significance

The case adds a major publisher-led challenge to the growing body of AI training-data litigation against model developers, and it is notable because the complaint names Zuckerberg personally and alleges day-to-day involvement in Llama development decisions.[5]

Transfer to California and case-management schedule

On September 25, 2026, Judge Castel granted Meta’s and Zuckerberg’s motions to transfer the action to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). He found substantial overlap with six pending Meta copyright cases there, including Kadrey, and applied the first-filed rule. The opinion concluded that the plaintiffs had not rebutted the presumption favoring the earlier forum and that the convenience factors and interests of justice favored transfer.[7]

The California docket, No. 4:26-cv-11415, recorded receipt of the transferred case on October 8. Its earlier scheduling entry set a case-management statement deadline of December 29, 2026 and an initial case-management conference for January 5, 2027 at 2 p.m., by videoconference in Oakland.[2]

See October 10, 2026 digest coverage.

October 29, 2026 case-management conference

The court’s October 29 minute entry records that Judge Vince Chhabria held the initial case-management conference in the Elsevier action, identified as No. 3:26-cv-11415-VC. The parties in Elsevier, Sullivan and Hobbs were directed to file stipulations proposing schedules for summary-judgment and class-certification motions. The minute entry sets a further conference for December 11 at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference, with the joint statement due December 4. These directions do not decide either motion or establish that a proposed schedule was adopted.[3]

This is later case-management activity than the January 5 conference listed in the earlier transfer-receipt entry. A later October 30 order has not been independently reviewed, so any subsequent schedule changes remain unverified.

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 N.D. California, Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-11415, public docket entries 102–103, October 8, 2026; complete public entry text reviewed October 10.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 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.
  4. ↑ Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Publishers, author Scott Turow accuse Meta and Mark Zuckerberg of training AI on copyrighted works - CBS News
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Publishers and Authors Sue Meta, Alleging 'Massive' Copyright Infringement Behind Its Llama AI Service - Publishing Perspectives
  7. ↑ S.D. New York, Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 26-cv-03689, ECF 101, September 25, 2026, pp. 1–3, 5–13; complete 13-page opinion reviewed October 10.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Elsevier_Inc_v_Meta_Platforms_Inc&oldid=7992"