Anthropic Beats Music Firms’ Bid for Users’ Personal Data (1)

Anthropic PBC doesn’t have to disclose to music publishers the personal information of users who prompted the AI company’s chatbot to produce song lyrics, delivering a privacy victory in a copyright case that could shape how courts balance legal discovery with user protections in AI tools.

Anthropic users’ account names and email addresses are unnecessary for music publishers to advance their lawsuit accusing the AI company of engaging in wholesale copying of protected lyrics to train its signature large language model, Claude, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen said during a Thursday hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Judge van Keulen didn’t see grounds for “tying the conversations that have been produced to specific users, again, against the weight of the privacy of third parties.” The important information about requests for lyrics that have led to copyrighted works being produced “is being turned over and I don’t see sufficient grounds to go beyond that at this time.”

The decision is consistent with a tentative order van Keulen issued July 31 rebuffing the publishers’ request for information about those users.

Mounting lawsuits against AI companies have highlighted longstanding tensions over balancing demands in discovery with protecting users’ data privacy. The decision follows OpenAI Inc.'s recent failure to escape a New York court order requiring the company to preserve all of its AI model’s inputs and outputs in a separate copyright lawsuit brought by news publishers.

Though the content sought from the AI companies differs—all inputs and outputs versus users’ account information—both OpenAI and Anthropic tied their privacy concerns to how their chatbots are used for personal, intimate queries like health and relationship issues.

Music publishers including Universal Music Corp. and Concord Music Group Inc. sued Anthropic in 2023. The AI company in March won dismissal of the contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and removal of copyright management information claims, but hasn’t moved to dismiss the publishers’ direct infringement claim. The publishers raised the allegations again in April in an amended complaint, and Anthropic’s renewed motion to dismiss is pending.

Publishers counsel, Nick Hailey of Oppenheim + Zebrak LLP, said the data is “so important” because it would help identify users with relevant information including Claude lyric outputs Anthropic didn’t preserve before the lawsuit, how often they ask Claude for lyrics, and how often Claude provided lyrics in spite of a guardrail. They pointed to 33 prompts and outputs in which users sought or received copies of copyrighted lyrics, including “Sweet Caroline” and “Message in a Bottle,” and argued in briefing the corresponding user information is “key evidence.”

While protecting general user privacy, van Keulen did allow limited searches of some Anthropic employees’ personal Claude accounts associated with non-Anthropic email addresses. The publishers argued the information is necessary to rebut Anthropic’s representations that it never wanted Claude to produce lyrics, and relates to Anthropic’s willfulness and knowledge of infringement.

“What better evidence is there than how Anthropic’s own employees are using Claude,” Hailey said.

Anthropic’s counsel, Sonal Mehta of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, countered that the publishers haven’t provided sufficient evidence to necessitate searching employees’ personal accounts, citing employees’ expectation of privacy from their employer.

The court ordered the parties to work together to create a list of Anthropic’s founders and executives subject to a search. Judge van Keulen permitted Anthropic to limit qualifying employees by first asking whether they had used their personal Claude account for lyrics or songs.

Judge van Keulen said she remains concerned about privacy and understands publishers’ interest in scrutinizing Anthropic’s intent. But she reminded them that conduct has to be tied to Anthropic to address willfulness and liability.

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, and Cowan Liebowitz & Latman PC also represent the music publishers. Latham & Watkins LLP also represents Anthropic.

The case is Concord Music Grp. Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, N.D. Cal., No. 24-cv-03811, hearing held 8/7/25.