10JUN

Judge probes $1.5bn Anthropic class deal

4 min read

10:06UTC

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín took the $1.5bn Bartz class settlement under submission with a 92.77% claims rate, then ordered fresh briefing on late opt-outs before approving anything.

← Back to Runway names its buyers; FOX builds Jump to analysis ↓

IndustryDeveloping

Key takeaway

The Bartz outcome becomes the reference price for every publisher-AI licence that follows.

At the 14 May 2026 fairness hearing in Bartz v Anthropic, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín took the $1.5bn class settlement under submission with a claims rate of 92.77%, covering 447,576 of 482,460 works ¹. On around 18 May the judge ordered supplemental briefing, due 21 May, on whether unexcused late opt-outs should be honoured. The fee petition stands at $187.5m, and final approval has not been entered.

Bartz v Anthropic is a copyright class action over authors' works used to train Anthropic's AI models, heard in the Northern District of California. A fairness hearing is the stage at which a judge decides whether a proposed class settlement is fair to the people it binds. "Taking it under submission" means the judge has reserved judgement rather than approving on the day. The late-opt-out question matters because every author who exits the class keeps the right to sue Anthropic separately, which changes both the defendant's exposure and the value of the deal on the table.

The settlement's headline figure tracks a number already circulating in the publishing industry. News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson read an anticipated $1.5bn Anthropic figure into his Q3 earnings transcript . The class-action result functions as a reference price: it sets the floor beneath which no publisher will license content to an AI developer, because litigation now offers a quantified alternative. A clean approval hardens that floor; a reopening on opt-outs leaves it provisional, and every bilateral negotiation waits on which way Judge Martínez-Olguín rules.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Anthropic makes Claude, an AI assistant that was trained on large amounts of text from the internet and books. A group of authors sued Anthropic, arguing their books were used to train Claude without permission or payment. This type of lawsuit is called a class action: one lawsuit on behalf of many people with the same claim. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion (about £1.2 billion) to settle the case. That money would be split among roughly 480,000 books and other works whose authors registered claims. The lawyers who brought the case want $187.5 million of that for themselves. The judge has not yet approved the settlement. She is asking additional questions about authors who tried to opt out of the settlement after the deadline. Until she gives final approval, the money has not moved and the case is not closed. For media and publishing companies, this matters because the per-work settlement value, roughly $3,000 per work if the total were split evenly, will become the reference point that AI companies use when negotiating direct licensing deals.

What could happen next?

Precedent
A final-approved $1.5bn Bartz settlement establishes a per-work floor of approximately $2,935 net that other AI labs will cite as the class-action alternative in bilateral licensing negotiations.
Short term · Assessed
Risk
If the judge's late-opt-out inquiry leads to a revised class definition, the settlement could be restructured or rejected, resetting the pricing benchmark downward or extending litigation uncertainty.
Short term · Assessed
Consequence
The $187.5m fee petition signals that plaintiff litigation capital is now treating AI copyright class actions as viable commercial investments, accelerating similar actions against other AI labs.
Medium term · Assessed
Meaning
The 92.77% claims rate, 447,576 of 482,460 works, reflects organised rights-holder mobilisation beyond what passive class action typically achieves, driven by the Authors Guild and comparable organisations.
Immediate · Reported

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The Google Books settlement, approved by Judge Denny Chin at first instance in 2008 then rejected by the Second Circuit in 2011, is the nearest structural precedent. Google had scanned 10 million books without authorisation and proposed a class settlement that would have given it a retroactive licence for all out-of-print books.

The DOJ opposed the settlement as a de-facto compulsory licence granted by private class action rather than by Congress, and the court agreed. Bartz v Anthropic faces a narrower but analogous objection: the class settlement establishes a compensation structure for AI training use that no legislation has authorised, and late opt-outs signal some rights holders believe the per-work figure undervalues their works.

Counter-parallel: The 2006 YouTube-Viacom settlement framework, eventually reached in 2014 for an undisclosed amount, proceeded without a court blocking the class structure. If the Bartz settlement avoids the compulsory-licence characterisation that sank Google Books, because it is structured as compensatory damages rather than a forward licence, the Second Circuit precedent does not apply directly and approval is more likely.

The $1.5bn total divided by 447,576 claimed works implies an average per-work settlement value of approximately $3,350 before the $187.5m fee deduction. After fees, the net-to-class figure is approximately $1.31bn, or roughly $2,935 per work.

That per-work floor sits above most individual bilateral licensing rates disclosed in the AI-publisher market to date (Reach plc's AWS deal is undisclosed on a per-work basis; Thomson Reuters disclosed $33m year-to-date across its full archive). It sits well below the implied per-work rate in News Corp's anticipated $1.5bn Anthropic figure , which covers a substantially smaller number of works under a bilateral rather than class structure.

The class settlement and bilateral licensing are pricing the same underlying asset, the right to train AI on copyrighted text, from opposite ends. The class floor suggests bilateral rates should be materially higher for commercially significant catalogues.

Consensus view: Ben Thompson (Stratechery), drawing on his analysis of the 2023 New York Times v OpenAI complaint and subsequent publisher licensing market, assessed that class-action copyright settlements against AI labs function as a price-discovery mechanism for the underlying licensing market, not as a deterrent.

The 92.77% claims rate in Bartz, 447,576 works out of 482,460, is unusually high for a class settlement and signals organised rights-holder participation that bilateral negotiators will cite as a revealed floor price where News Corp named $1.5bn as an anticipated settlement figure in SEC filings.

Counter-view: The Authors Guild, in its public statement on the Bartz settlement terms, argued that per-work settlement figures calculated from the class total are misleading because the class includes works with vastly different commercial weight: a self-published e-book and a Stephen King novel both count as one work.

On the Authors Guild's view, the settlement imposes a below-market price on high-revenue works by averaging them with low-revenue ones, which is why the Guild opposed class certification in similar actions against other AI labs.

Key tension: Whether Judge Martínez-Olguín's supplemental briefing on late opt-outs signals a structural fairness concern about the class definition, which could unwind the settlement, or is a procedural step that leaves the $1.5bn structure intact.

Sources:Runway·FOX Entertainment·Sportico

Mentions:Google →California →YouTube →OpenAI →Robert Thomson →News Corp →New York Times →Claude →Anthropic →Araceli Martínez-Olguín →

First Reported In

Update #3 · ITV nears sale into Sky's AI stack

Runway· 27 May 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Alsup withholds approval on Anthropic $1.5bn

Judge Alsup's prior declination of the Bartz settlement on fee grounds set the procedural context in which Judge Martínez-Olguín (now reassigned) is conducting fresh scrutiny of the settlement terms.

Occurred 14 May 2026

Read story →

This Event

Judge probes $1.5bn Anthropic class deal

The class-action outcome sets the floor for every bilateral AI-content licence publishers negotiate next.

Different Perspectives

RTL Group

RTL closed its Sky Deutschland acquisition on 1 June for €68m, less than half the €150m announced price, creating a 12.3-million-subscriber DACH entity with Bundesliga rights through 2029 and Netflix's primary DACH distribution partnership. The consolidated scale justifies AI production investment neither entity could have afforded separately.

ITV / Carolyn McCall

McCall confirmed on 4 June that Sky talks are 'very much actively engaged', with the £1.6bn plus earn-out structure unchanged. ITV's AI strategy is effectively deferred to Comcast: if the deal closes, ITV inherits Sky's AI production stack without a separate procurement cycle.

European Commission / EU AI Act

The Omnibus provisional agreement reached in May 2026 grandfathers in-market AI systems until 2 December 2026, extending the effective Article 50 machine-readable-marking deadline by four months for existing deployments. No EU broadcaster has signed the Code of Practice, meaning incumbents are in-market without a disclosed compliance posture.

DAZN Group

DAZN closed a $100m acquisition of ViewLift to own its US streaming infrastructure rather than rent it, and launched the integrated FIFA+ DTC service in the same window. The acquire move addresses a third-party dependency before DAZN inherits the Lenovo World Cup AI broadcast stack for an expected 6 billion viewers from 11 June.

FOX Entertainment / FoxNXT

FOX posted a VP, AI Production Support role on 3 June inside FoxNXT, its technology unit, scoping a central AI function across the full production chain without naming a vendor. The posting signals FOX is building capability governance before committing to a tool stack, the inverse sequence to BBC and Fremantle who joined the Runway customer list first.

Runway

Runway opened its European HQ in London on 1 June and named BBC, Fremantle, and WPP as enterprise customers alongside a $100m UK investment commitment. The disclosure positions Runway as the default generative-video substrate for European broadcasters and agencies at the same moment it serves Netflix and Disney in the US, concentrating production-AI access at a single US vendor.