The Bartz v. Anthropic copyright settlement has seen significant developments in the past several months. If you're tracking this case — as an eligible claimant, a curious author, or someone considering selling your claim — here's a sharp update on where things stand heading into the April 22 final approval hearing.
New Judge: Alsup Out, Martinez-Olguin In
The biggest procedural development of late 2025 was the departure of Judge William Alsup from the case.
Judge Alsup had presided over the case from early stages and was known for his hands-on approach, sharp questioning of both parties, and evident skepticism toward large fee requests. In December 2025, Alsup took inactive status — standard practice for federal judges who step back from active caseloads while remaining on the bench.
The case was reassigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, a more recent appointee to the Northern District of California. Judge Martinez-Olguin has a background in civil rights and employment law and was confirmed to the federal bench in 2022.
For the settlement, the practical effect has been continuity — Martinez-Olguin picked up the case mid-stream and has largely followed the direction Alsup set, including his skepticism toward excessive attorney fees. She will conduct the April 22, 2026 final approval hearing.
Fee Slashed: $375M → $187.5M
One of the most author-favorable developments in the case came on March 23, 2026, when Judge Martinez-Olguin issued an order cutting the attorney fee request in half.
Plaintiffs' counsel had sought $375 million — 25% of the $1.5 billion fund. Judge Martinez-Olguin awarded $187.5 million, or 12.5%.
To put that in perspective: the cut means $187.5 million more flows to authors rather than their attorneys. For individual claimants, this translates to meaningfully higher per-work payouts.
This outcome echoes the final memo filed by Judge Alsup in December 2025, in which he sharply criticized several "interloper" law firms — firms that had done minimal work on the case but sought to claim significant fees from the class fund. Alsup's memo described these efforts in blunt terms as inappropriate attempts to take money that should go to the harmed class members. Martinez-Olguin appears to have taken this analysis seriously.
John Carreyrou Opts Out — And Says Why
One of the most attention-grabbing developments in the case was the opt-out of John Carreyrou, the journalist and author of Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup — one of the bestselling nonfiction books of the past decade.
Carreyrou, along with several other authors, filed an opt-out from the class settlement before the deadline. Their reasoning, as reported in public filings: the settlement resolves their copyright claims "for pennies on the dollar" — and, critically, does so against only Anthropic, while potentially implicating much broader conduct.
Carreyrou and his co-opt-outs are reportedly pursuing separate litigation against a wider set of AI defendants, including Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity. Their theory is that multiple AI companies used the same or similar pirated training datasets, and that settling with Anthropic alone lets the rest off the hook — or at least weakens future claims.
Whether this strategy pays off remains to be seen. Separate AI copyright litigation is notoriously slow and uncertain. But the opt-outs represent a meaningful cohort of authors who believe the settlement undervalues their claims — a view that has added rhetorical heat to objections filed before the April 22 hearing.
The Music Industry Moves In
Separately — but relevantly — Universal Music Group, Concord, and BMG filed suit against Anthropic in early 2026, alleging that Anthropic torrented and used over 20,000 copyrighted musical compositions without authorization.
This case is distinct from Bartz v. Anthropic (which covers books, not music) but illustrates the broader wave of AI copyright litigation hitting the industry. Anthropic faces copyright claims from multiple directions. The resolution of the book settlement may set precedents — both legal and financial — for how the music and other content cases unfold.
For authors in the Bartz settlement, the music litigation is background context: it reinforces that AI companies face genuine liability for training data practices, which in turn reinforces the legitimacy and value of the book settlement.
What to Expect April 22
The April 22, 2026 final approval hearing is the make-or-break moment for the settlement.
Judge Martinez-Olguin will hear from:
- Plaintiffs' counsel, who will argue the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
- Objectors, who may argue the settlement undervalues claims or that certain terms are unfavorable
- Defense counsel (Anthropic's lawyers), who will support approval
Several things are not in dispute at this stage:
- The $1.5 billion settlement amount has been agreed upon by both sides
- Preliminary approval was already granted
- The attorney fee has already been cut from $375M to $187.5M
The most likely outcomes are:
Even after final approval, the post-approval appeals period (typically 30–60 days) gives objectors the chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Appeals can delay distributions by months or longer.
What This Means for Claimants
The past few months have been net positive for authors:
- The attorney fee cut adds money back to the claimant pool
- The low claims filing rate (only ~12% as of October 2025) continues to suggest potential per-work payouts above initial estimates
- Final approval is expected, clearing the path to distributions
The remaining uncertainty is timing. Best case: distributions begin in late 2026. More likely: early-to-mid 2027. Worst case (appeals): 2028 or beyond.
For authors who'd rather not wait — and who want certainty now over potential upside later — the option to sell your claim for an immediate cash offer remains available.
Check if your works qualify → | Get a cash offer →
TrainedOnYou is an independent litigation finance company not affiliated with Anthropic PBC, the settlement administrator, or any party to the litigation. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.