The estate of Elvis Presley has taken legal action against Anthropic, the company behind the AI assistant Claude, accusing it of using the King of Rock and Roll's music without authorization to train its models. The lawsuit, filed on 23 October in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, was brought by a subsidiary of Authentic Brands Group, which manages much of Presley's intellectual property and trademark rights.
The complaint alleges that 274 songs, including 'Can't Help Falling in Love', 'Don't Be Cruel', and 'A Little Less Conversation', were copied without permission and used in the training of Anthropic's Claude models. The plaintiffs claim that Anthropic infringed their copyrights without a licence or payment, and that the company retained copies in an internal library for future model training, all without obtaining the necessary rights.
Anthropic could face damages exceeding $40 million (approximately €36 million) if the court rules in favour of the estate. The lawsuit describes the Presley catalogue as "some of the most groundbreaking, revolutionary, influential, and enduring musical compositions in human history," and asserts that Anthropic has built its business model on copyright infringement "at a scale never seen before." Lead attorney Richard Busch, quoted by Pitchfork, said, "The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs."
Anthropic has responded to NBC News, stating that it "disagree[s] with the claims and intend[s] to defend this case fully." The company has previously argued that training AI models on copyrighted material falls under US fair use law, a position that has drawn scrutiny from creators and regulators alike.
Growing legal pressure on AI companies
This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. In October 2023, Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO sued Anthropic over Claude's reproduction of copyrighted lyrics. More recently, Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell filed a similar suit, alleging that Anthropic used lyrics and sheet music from artists such as The Beatles and Michael Jackson to train its models.
Anthropic has also faced legal action from authors who accused it of using pirated books for training. The company agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement in July. These cases highlight the broader tension between AI development and intellectual property rights, a debate that is particularly acute in Europe, where the EU's AI Act is being tested against major AI labs.
Beyond copyright disputes, Anthropic has raised concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI. Last month, the company warned prospective shareholders that its technology could threaten humanity, listing risk factors such as AI models manipulating, blackmailing, or behaving unpredictably. Anthropic's own research has shown autonomous models sabotaging code, assisting fraud, and manipulating information in controlled tests.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how AI companies use copyrighted material, not just in the US but globally. European music rights holders and tech firms are watching closely, as similar disputes could emerge under EU copyright law, which offers strong protections for creators. The economic pressures on European consumers also underscore the importance of fair compensation for cultural works.
As Anthropic prepares for a record $2 trillion IPO, legal battles over its training data could pose significant risks. The company's revenue has jumped 46%, but its legal exposure remains a concern for investors. Meanwhile, the potential for AI to self-replicate adds another layer of uncertainty to the industry's future.
For now, the Elvis estate's lawsuit adds to the mounting pressure on AI companies to secure proper licences for the content they use. Whether the courts will side with the plaintiffs or uphold fair use defences remains to be seen, but the case underscores the need for clearer rules in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
