Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued AI startup Anthropic on Friday in a Northern California federal court. The publishers accuse the company of illegally scraping copyrighted songs to train its Claude AI models.

The complaint names co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann. It cites works including "Eye of the Tiger," Marvin Gaye's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," and Taylor Swift's "Paper Rings." The companies seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed composition and a jury trial.

Piracy Claims Tied to Earlier Book Ruling

The lawsuit references a June 2025 court ruling finding that Anthropic downloaded more than 7 million pirated books from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. While a judge ruled that using copyrighted books for training constituted fair use, the acquisition method remained at issue. This was later resolved through a $1.5 billion settlement.

Publishers allege Claude can reproduce copyrighted lyrics in responses. They argue this allows the AI to substitute for licensed lyric services, potentially undermining the market for human-created music.

Not Anthropic's First Music Copyright Battle

Anthropic faces prior music-copyright scrutiny. A separate 2023-filed suit from Universal Music Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO secured court-approved "guardrails." These require Anthropic to prevent unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted lyrics in Claude's outputs.

Financial Context Amid Legal Pressure

Anthropic recently reported preliminary second-quarter revenue of more than $11.5 billion. This represents growth of over 14 times from the same period last year. The company also reported its first positive adjusted operating income ahead of a possible IPO.

What the Numbers Show

The legal risks are materializing against a backdrop of explosive revenue growth. With quarterly revenue exceeding $11.5 billion, the potential liability from statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song could be significant if the number of infringed compositions is large. This contrasts with the previous book settlement, where the core training use was deemed fair use but the sourcing method triggered a $1.5 billion payout.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the Pentagon’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain security risk violated the law. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin stated the government lacked sufficient rationale for the action.

Lin argued that the Department of Defense crossed a constitutional line by using the designation as payback for the company’s public criticism. The order noted that national security decisions warrant judicial deference, but the filings pointed to Anthropic’s media posture and pushback on military AI deployment as primary factors.

Legal Basis for Ruling

The judge wrote that neither the Constitution nor the invoked federal statute allows sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic’s critique of the Administration’s views. The Pentagon claimed it could not trust Anthropic to ensure model integrity due to the company’s increasingly hostile manner through the press.

Background of Dispute

The dispute traces back to February, when negotiations over access to Anthropic’s Claude models fell apart. Anthropic sought commitments that its systems would not be used for full autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance. The department pressed for broad access for any lawful use.

Anthropic challenged the action in two courts: San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Lin’s ruling addressed the California matter. The D.C. litigation continues, leaving the company technically under the supply chain risk label until that case is resolved.

Company Response

An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the court’s ruling that the designation was unlawful. The company stated it remains focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for national security so all Americans benefit from this technology.

Benzinga contacted the Pentagon for comment. The department acknowledged receipt of the request but did not respond before publication.