Policy

AI Copyright Litigation Sees Key Developments in Sony, Meta, and Anthropic Cases

On April 20, 2026, McKool Smith published its AI Infringement Case Updates detailing recent court actions: the motion to dismiss in Sony v. Uncharted Labs (Udio) was denied (pending further record development on YouTube stream ripping and §1201 circumvention claims); Meta filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint in Kadrey et al. v. Meta (admitting torrenting of books but contesting legal conclusions, with fair use as the central issue); and Anthropic moved to exclude expert testimony on harm in Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic (arguing opinions are speculative and contradicted by UMG investor statements).

Tech Insights Reporter Apr 20, 2026 8 min read San Francisco

title: "AI Copyright Litigation Sees Key Developments in Sony, Meta, and Anthropic Cases" summary: "On April 20, 2026, McKool Smith published its AI Infringement Case Updates detailing recent court actions: the motion to dismiss in Sony v. Uncharted Labs (Udio) was denied (pending further record development on YouTube stream ripping and §1201 circumvention claims); Meta filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint in Kadrey et al. v. Meta (admitting torrenting of books but contesting legal conclusions, with fair use as the central issue); and Anthropic moved to exclude expert testimony on harm in Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic (arguing opinions are speculative and contradicted by UMG investor statements)." category: "Policy" author: "Tech Insights Reporter" date: "2026-04-20" readTime: "8 min read" location: "San Francisco" hue: 250 regions: - "us" tag: "Copyright Litigation" featured: false

TLDR

McKool Smith’s April 20, 2026 AI Infringement Case Updates reported significant procedural developments in major generative AI copyright lawsuits. In Sony v. Uncharted Labs (d/b/a Udio), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims involving circumvention of YouTube’s “rolling cipher” access controls under 17 U.S.C. § 1201, but left the issue open for further factual development after expert reports. In Richard Kadrey et al. v. Meta, Meta answered the fourth amended complaint, admitting it torrented books without permission while disputing the legal implications, with fair use remaining the core unresolved question. In Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic, Anthropic filed a motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert Michael Smith’s testimony on market harm, characterizing it as speculative and inconsistent with public statements by UMG (plaintiffs’ parent) that AI would have a “net positive” impact and that revenue was not harmed by “AI royalty dilution.” Additional cases (including Reddit v. Anthropic and others) saw remands, related-case orders, or minimal activity.

Sony v. Uncharted Labs (Udio)

Current Status: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss denied, for now.

Plaintiffs allege Udio scraped copyrighted content from platforms like YouTube via “stream ripping.” They claim YouTube’s “rolling cipher” constitutes technological protection measures, and that Udio violated § 1201(a)(1) by circumventing access controls to obtain training data.

Key legal issue: § 1201 distinguishes “access controls” (circumvention violates § 1201(a)(1)) from “copy controls” (which do not). Defendants argued YouTube’s cipher is a copy control only. Plaintiffs maintain it functions as both, citing precedent on DVD encryption.

Court ruling: Insufficient factual record at this stage to decide how the controls operate. Motion denied without prejudice; defendants may renew after expert discovery develops the record on the technology.

Richard Kadrey et al. v. Meta

Current Status: Meta files its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs added contributory infringement claims based on Meta’s alleged torrenting of books. Meta’s answer admits torrenting without permission but contests the legal conclusions.

The case is advanced; few facts appear disputed. The central question remains whether Meta’s copying constitutes fair use.

Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic

Current Status: Anthropic moves to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert.

Anthropic seeks to exclude expert Michael Smith’s opinions on harm to plaintiffs from generative AI, arguing they are speculative and poorly supported by literature on consumer preferences. Anthropic further claims Smith’s views contradict public statements by UMG (parent of two plaintiffs) to investors: UMG’s revenue was not harmed by “AI royalty dilution,” and AI would have an “overwhelmingly net positive” impact on UMG’s business.

Additionally, Judge Lee related BMG Rights Mgmt (US) v. Anthropic to this case. Given the late stage, the BMG matter is likely to be sidelined pending summary judgment resolution.

Other Notable Updates

Reddit v. Anthropic: Remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court after procedural disputes. Case management conference set for May 20; parties jointly petitioned to designate as “complex.”
SDNY Multi-District Litigation: Fact discovery closed; remaining discovery issues to be addressed at in-person status conference May 12 (briefing schedule set).
UMG Recordings v. Suno: Quiet docket; plaintiffs filed notice of supplemental authority regarding the denied motion to dismiss in the parallel Sony/Udio case (same YouTube rolling cipher § 1201 issues).
Sarah Andersen et al. v. Stability AI et al.: Ongoing disputes over depositions and source code inspection as fact discovery deadline approaches.
Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. v. Midjourney: No new developments on Midjourney’s motion seeking documents on Disney’s in-house GenAI development and use.
Disney et al. v. MiniMax & Hailuo AI: Defendants filed motions to dismiss on jurisdiction (MiniMax not a legal entity; SXJT China-based with no US-directed activities) and failure to state a claim (copyright registration issues, location of copying in China, secondary infringement standards).
Hendrix v. Apple: Apple answered amended consolidated complaint, admitting models trained on copyrighted works but largely denying or recharacterizing other allegations.

Why this story matters

The April 20, 2026 updates provide a snapshot of the maturing legal landscape for generative AI training and outputs. Courts are pushing past early dismissal stages into factual development (e.g., technology specifics in Udio, expert challenges in Anthropic), while core fair use and market harm questions remain live and high-stakes. The cases illustrate divergent strategies: some defendants (Meta) admitting technical facts while contesting law; others (Anthropic) attacking the reliability of harm evidence and noting public statements by rights holders downplaying AI’s negative revenue impact. With billions in potential statutory damages at issue and parallel proceedings (including MDLs and related cases), these developments signal that resolution will likely turn on detailed records developed through expert discovery rather than threshold legal rulings. For AI developers, rights holders, and policymakers, the trajectory underscores the need for robust documentation of training data provenance, licensing strategies, and economic impact analyses.

Sources

McKool Smith: “AI Infringement Case Updates: April 20, 2026.” https://www.mckoolsmith.com/newsroom-ailitigation-59
Cross-referenced coverage of the underlying complaints, motions, and prior court orders in the referenced cases.

Featured Image Alt Text

Collage of court documents and gavel with logos for Sony/Udio, Meta, Anthropic, and other AI companies, overlaid with key April 20 2026 litigation updates on motions, answers, and expert challenges in copyright cases