News March 02 2026

From AI Law Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

March 2, 2026 — Daily digest of AI law developments.

This article consolidates 2 news stories from March 2, 2026.

Contents

1. Carreyrou v Anthropic Copyright Opt Out Lawsuit 2. Supreme Court Denies Review Thaler v Perlmutter

Carreyrou v Anthropic Copyright Opt Out Lawsuit

April 2026 — Author John Carreyrou Leads Opt-Out Copyright Lawsuit Against Anthropic and Other AI Companies

Bestselling author John Carreyrou and other writers who opted out of the Bartz v. Anthropic class action settlement have filed an omnibus copyright infringement lawsuit against Anthropic, Google, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity AI, alleging their copyrighted works were used to train AI models without authorization or compensation.<ref name="chatgpt">Judge P. Casey Pitts Gets Reassigned — John Carreyrou v. Anthropic Copyright Suit, ChatGPT Is Eating the World, March 2, 2026</ref><ref name="docket">Justia: Carreyrou v. Anthropic, Case No. 3:25-cv-10897</ref>

The Opt-Out Litigation

The case (Carreyrou et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-10897) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, by authors who chose not to participate in the Bartz v. Anthropic $1.5 billion class action settlement covering approximately 500,000 titles. The opt-out deadline was January 29, 2026, and these plaintiffs are pursuing individual statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work rather than accepting the class settlement terms.<ref name="authorsalliance">AI Class Action Litigation Update: Books — Where Things Stand in Early 2026, Authors Alliance, January 27, 2026</ref><ref name="writerbeware">Anthropic Copyright Settlement: April Update, Writer Beware, April 10, 2026</ref>

Named Defendants

  • Anthropic PBC — Training Claude on copyrighted books
  • Google — Use of copyrighted works in AI training
  • Meta Platforms — Use of copyrighted works in LLaMA training
  • xAI — Use of copyrighted works in Grok training
  • Perplexity AI — Use of copyrighted works in AI search models

Claims against OpenAI were initially included but have been severed and transferred to multidistrict litigation (MDL), separate from the remaining omnibus case.<ref name="chatgpt" />

Procedural Developments

  • The case was originally assigned to Judge William Alsup (who retired end of 2025), then Judge Trina Thompson (who recused herself), and is now before Judge P. Casey Pitts as of March 2, 2026.<ref name="chatgpt" />
  • Anthropic sought severance on March 25, 2026. Judge Pitts may soon rule on severing additional defendants from the omnibus case.<ref name="chatgpt" /><ref name="docket" />
  • The Bartz v. Anthropic settlement final fairness hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2026.<ref name="societyofauthors">Anthropic: List of Stolen Works Published, Society of Authors, January 20, 2026</ref>

Significance

The Carreyrou case represents a significant fork in AI copyright litigation: while the class settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic provides a path for most affected authors, opt-out plaintiffs are pursuing potentially higher damages through individual litigation. The omnibus structure suing multiple AI companies simultaneously also creates unique procedural challenges around severance and coordination.

See Also

References

<references />

See individual article: Carreyrou v Anthropic Copyright Opt Out Lawsuit

Supreme Court Denies Review Thaler v Perlmutter

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 25-449, on March 2, 2026, declining to review whether an AI system can qualify as an "author" under the Copyright Act.<ref name="mayerbrown">Mayer Brown, "Supreme Court Denies Review in AI Authorship Case" (March 2026)</ref><ref name="scotus">Supreme Court Docket, No. 25-449</ref>

Background

Dr. Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was autonomously generated by his AI system, the "Creativity Machine" (also known as DABUS). Thaler listed the AI as the sole author and conceded that no human contributed creative input to the work.<ref name="reedsmith">Reed Smith, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: Human-Only Rule for AI" (March 2026)</ref><ref name="bakerdonelson">Baker Donelson, "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter: AI Cannot Be an 'Author' Under the Copyright Act" (March 2026)</ref>

The U.S. Copyright Office denied registration, citing its longstanding policy requiring human authorship. Thaler sued the Register of Copyrights (Shira Perlmutter) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Lower Court Rulings

The D.D.C. district court granted summary judgment for the Copyright Office, holding that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement" of copyright law.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

The D.C. Circuit affirmed on March 18, 2025, finding that the Copyright Act implicitly requires human authors based on provisions that assume human capacities — including property ownership, lifespan-based copyright terms, and the requirement for signatures.<ref name="mayerbrown" /> The court rejected Thaler's arguments that the AI could qualify as an author under a work-made-for-hire theory or that ownership of the AI's creation could convey authorship rights.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

Supreme Court Denial

Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the human-only authorship rule created a "chilling effect" on AI use and innovation.<ref name="bakerdonelson" /> The U.S. Department of Justice opposed certiorari, arguing that Thaler's case was a poor vehicle because he had disclaimed any human creative contribution, making the factual record unusually narrow.<ref name="bakerdonelson" />

The Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, without comment, leaving the D.C. Circuit's ruling intact.<ref name="mayerbrown" /><ref name="scotus" />

Implications

The denial preserves the binding precedent that works generated entirely by AI — without meaningful human creative involvement — lack copyright protection. However, the ruling leaves unresolved the harder question of how much human involvement is sufficient for AI-assisted works to qualify for protection.<ref name="reedsmith" /><ref name="joneswalker">Jones Walker, "With Thaler Closed, Courts Must Now Turn to the Harder Question of AI-Assisted Authorship" (March 2026)</ref>

Legal commentators have noted that future cases involving human-modified AI outputs may produce different outcomes, and that the threshold of "sufficient" human involvement will likely require either congressional action or further litigation to clarify.<ref name="hklaw">Holland & Knight, "The Final Word: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on AI Authorship" (March 2026)</ref>

Related Cases

Thaler has also pursued parallel litigation on AI inventorship under patent law, equally without success. See Thaler v. Vidal.

References

<references />

See individual article: Supreme Court Denies Review Thaler v Perlmutter

Categories

Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=News_March_02_2026&oldid=286"