The Bartz v. Anthropic lawsuit, which had been speeding along at a rapid clip since July, hit a major bump yesterday when Judge William Alsup postponed approval of a proposed settlement. Per the agreement, AI company Anthropic said it would pay $1.5 billion to cover charges that it violated the copyright of rightsholders when it illegally downloaded hundreds of thousands of books from pirate databases Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror in the effort to train its large language models.

Alsup signaled his discomfort with the proposal in a filing released the evening before the September 8 hearing, writing that he was “disappointed” that attorneys representing the author plaintiffs had left “important questions to be answered in the future, including respecting the Works List, Class List, Claim Form." He was especially concerned for works with multiple claimants with regards to the notification process, voicing worry over what would happen if one party wanted to opt-out of the settlement and the other did not.

In the filing, and later in court, Judge Alsup expressed skepticism about the entire resolution process, including the timeline, noting that it relies on input from the Author-Publisher Working Group, which will then face challenges by Anthropic, all of which needs to be completed before the October 10 deadline. Before a preliminary approval can be granted, Alsup ruled that those “critical choices will need to be confirmed well before October 10."

Annelise Levy of Bloomberg Law reported that during the hearing, Judge Alsup said he felt “misled” by the agreement, expressing concern that the deal is being forced “down the throat of authors.” Alsup also seemed particularly confused about the role the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild will play in getting publishers and authors to back the agreement.

According to Bloomberg, Alsup criticized plaintiff attorneys for enlisting an “army” of attorneys to work on the settlement disbursement, including some from the AAP and Authors Guild. Aslup said that “add-on” attorneys won’t be paid from the settlement funds and attorneys’ fees will be based on how much is paid to class members.

Co-counsel for the class, Justin Nelson of Susman Godfrey LLP, explained that the groups were brought in to collaborate over complex ownership questions, including when certain books with multiple authors and publishers as claimants. Representatives from the AAP and Authors Guild both said that the judge didn’t fully understand how publishing works and what role they will play in working with their respective memberships.

In a statement, Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger said the Guild was “confused” by the court’s suggestion that the Guild and AAP were working behind the scenes in ways that could pressure authors to accept the settlement “when that is precisely the opposite of our proposed role as informational advisors to the working group.”

The goal of the working group, which had been proposed by lawyers for the class, “is to ensure that authors’ interests are fully represented and to bring our expertise... to the discussions with complete transparency,” Rasenberger continued. “There are industry norms that we want to make sure are accounted for.”

The Guild also hit back against suggestions that the organization will financially benefit from its participation in the $1.5 billion case. “Our mission is to protect all authors and the profession of writing generally. We are a not for profit and will not benefit from the settlement other than to fulfill our mission,” Rasenberger said.

AAP CEO Maria Pallante offered an even more vigorous explanation of AAP’s role, as well as the role of the Guild, in the proceedings. “The Association of American Publishers and the Authors’ Guild are not-for-profits that have worked hard to support counsel in the case and to make sure that authors and publishers have the information they need,” Pallante said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Court today demonstrated a lack of understanding of how the publishing industry works.”

Pallante continued: "It's critical that the number of works included in the settlement is complete, and the Court's reluctance to give the parties time to do that—without any explanation—is troubling. Similarly, the Court seems to be envisioning a claims process that would be unworkable, and sees a world with collateral litigation between authors and publishers for years to come."

“Class actions are supposed to resolve cases, not create new disputes, and certainly not between the class members who were harmed in the first place,” Pallante said. “We're committed to continuing to work with the Authors’ Guild and other stakeholders to decide the best way to proceed; and we're hopeful that the Court will be open to understanding what it seems to be missing about this industry.”

Alsup gave the parties a September 15 deadline to submit a final list of works, which currently stands around 465,000. The next full hearing will be September 25. If Alsup doesn't receive satisfactory updates, he force the case to go to trial, a trial that is on the books for Dec. 1, 2025.

This story has been updated.