Federal Judge Dismisses Copyright Lawsuit Against Meta Over AI Training

In a significant legal ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook, on June 25, 2025. The lawsuit had been filed by a collective of thirteen prominent authors, including comedians and novelists such as Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, who accused Meta of unlawfully utilizing their works to train its generative artificial intelligence (AI) system, known as Llama. The decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence technology.

Judge Chhabria's ruling follows a prior decision by Judge William Alsup, which similarly dismissed major copyright claims against the AI company Anthropic. In that case, the court acknowledged the transformative nature of AI-generated content, asserting it fell under the "fair use" doctrine of U.S. copyright law. However, Judge Chhabria emphasized that his ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Meta's practices. He stated, "This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one."

The lawsuit accused Meta of "massive copyright infringement" by allegedly sourcing texts from online repositories of pirated works to enhance the capabilities of its Llama system. The plaintiffs contended that lengthy and distinctively written passages are crucial for teaching AI chatbots the nuances of human language. They argued that Meta could have legitimately licensed these works instead of resorting to piracy.

Meta's legal team countered the allegations by asserting that U.S. copyright law permits unauthorized copying for transformative purposes, leading to the creation of new and distinct AI-generated expressions. They maintained that the Llama system does not replicate the copyrighted materials but rather produces original outputs based on patterns learned from the texts. Meta's attorneys further stated, "No one can use Llama to read Sarah Silverman’s description of her childhood, or Junot Diaz’s story of a Dominican boy growing up in New Jersey."

The court's decision has broader implications for the rapidly evolving AI landscape. According to Dr. Emily Roberts, a legal scholar specializing in intellectual property at Stanford University, "This ruling could set a precedent for how AI companies navigate copyright issues in the future. If companies can continue to leverage potentially pirated materials under the guise of fair use, it raises ethical and legal concerns about the ownership of creative works."

The authors' case against Meta has been notable not only for its legal ramifications but also for its exposure of internal discussions within the company regarding the ethics of using pirated materials. The case has reportedly escalated to senior executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and highlighted the risks associated with extracting content from dubious sources.

As the legal landscape surrounding AI continues to evolve, other authors and creators remain vigilant. The ruling applies specifically to the thirteen plaintiffs involved in the case and does not preclude future claims from other authors whose works may have been utilized without permission. Legal experts anticipate that as AI technology advances, further litigation will arise, bringing the complexities of copyright law into sharper focus.

In conclusion, the dismissal of the copyright lawsuit against Meta underscores the ongoing tensions between technological innovation and intellectual property rights. As generative AI becomes increasingly prevalent in various sectors, stakeholders must navigate a landscape fraught with ethical dilemmas and legal uncertainties. The future of copyright in the age of AI remains uncertain, prompting critical discussions among creators, legal professionals, and technologists alike.