Federal Judge Rules in Meta’s Favor in AI Copyright Lawsuit

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Meta did not violate copyright law when it trained its AI models on books authored by 13 writers, including Sarah Silverman. The decision marks a significant, though narrowly defined, legal victory for Meta and the broader tech industry.

The case was dismissed through summary judgment by Federal Judge Vince Chhabria, meaning the court resolved the matter without proceeding to a jury trial. The judge determined that Meta’s use of copyrighted books qualified as “fair use,” a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances.

A Narrow Ruling, Not a Blanket Clearance

While the ruling favors Meta, Judge Chhabria made clear that it should not be interpreted as a broad endorsement of using copyrighted material to train AI models. Instead, he concluded that the plaintiffs “made the wrong arguments” and failed to present adequate evidence on key points, especially the potential harm to the book market.

“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” he wrote. “In cases involving uses like Meta’s, it seems like the plaintiffs will often win, at least where those cases have better-developed records on the market effects of the defendant’s use.”

A central reason for the ruling was the judge’s view that Meta’s AI training was “transformative”—meaning the technology did not simply copy or reproduce the authors’ original books. The authors also failed to prove that Meta’s use damaged their market value, which is a key element in determining fair use. “The plaintiffs presented no meaningful evidence on market dilution at all,” Chhabria noted.

Implications for Other AI Copyright Cases

The ruling follows a similar outcome in a lawsuit against Anthropic, another AI company that was accused of using copyrighted books for training purposes. Together, the cases provide momentum for the tech industry’s position that training AI on copyrighted content can fall within fair use—though both judges stressed the limits of their decisions.

Several major lawsuits remain active, targeting a wider range of copyrighted materials:

• The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for using news articles in AI training.

• Disney and Universal have filed lawsuits against Midjourney for training models on films and television content.

Judge Chhabria emphasized that fair use determinations are highly case-specific and may depend on the nature of the content involved. “It seems that markets for certain types of works (like news articles) might be even more vulnerable to indirect competition from AI outputs,” he wrote.

What This Means

While the ruling strengthens the legal footing for some AI developers, it stops short of offering a definitive shield for the industry. Instead, it reinforces that fair use arguments will rise or fall on the specific evidence presented—particularly around how AI training affects the original creator’s market.

For tech companies, the Meta and Anthropic rulings are positive but limited signals. For authors, media companies, and other rights holders, the message is clear: future lawsuits may succeed if they build stronger, more detailed cases. The broader debate over AI and copyright is far from settled—and future rulings will likely shape how these powerful tools are developed and governed.

As AI technologies evolve faster than existing legal frameworks, these early rulings signal that the future of intellectual property will be shaped as much by courtroom nuance as by technological ambition.

Editor’s Note: This article was created by Alicia Shapiro, CMO of AiNews.com, with writing, image, and idea-generation support from ChatGPT, an AI assistant. However, the final perspective and editorial choices are solely Alicia Shapiro’s. Special thanks to ChatGPT for assistance with research and editorial support in crafting this article.