Ruling for Meta on the record in Kadrey v. Meta, a US federal judge said this does not make training on copyrighted books lawful and called market dilution the potentially winning argument

Event date / reported

Evidence stage

Tasks this bears on

Where this applies

United States. The court ruled for Meta against thirteen authors on the record before it, but said the ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful, only that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments; it described market dilution — a product likely to flood the market with similar works — as the potentially winning argument, on which the plaintiffs presented no evidence. It is one district court's order.

What this means

What it does not yet show

One district-court order on one record; it decides nothing about other authors or future cases.

What you can check

Does it change the assessment?

Source