Hachette and Elsevier lead new Google AI copyright suit
Major European publishers are suing Google in New York for allegedly using their copyrighted books to train Gemini, a case that could dictate how American tech firms legally exploit European content archives.
A group of major publishers and authors have filed a class action lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing the company of using their copyrighted works to train its Gemini AI platform. The plaintiffs include European publishing heavyweights Hachette and Elsevier, alongside Cengage, author Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E.
The complaint centres on the alleged misuse of books previously shared with Google under strict, limited-purpose agreements. Publishers have a long history of providing Google with copyrighted works specifically to make them searchable via Google Books, which displays only short snippets, or to sell them via the Google Play store. The lawsuit alleges Google took these copies and used them to train Gemini without permission.
“Google illegally copied works from all these scope-limited programs for AI training, knowing it lacked authorization to do so,” the lawsuit reads. The plaintiffs also claim Google intentionally removed or altered copyright information to conceal that its models were trained on stolen materials.
An internal Google document cited in the filing reportedly acknowledges the risk, warning that using copyrighted books for AI training could be “highly problematic for Google” and might result in “$10Bs-$100Bs in potential fines.” Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A strategic legal venue
By filing in New York, the publishers are deliberately avoiding California, where two early federal rulings have favoured AI companies. Those California judges determined that ingesting copyrighted works for AI training constitutes “fair use” under U.S. copyright law, a statute that has not been updated since before the internet existed.
However, the legal landscape remains volatile. Anthropic was recently fined $1.5 billion for pirating works to train its AI, marking the largest payout in U.S. copyright history. Around half a million writers were eligible for at least $3,000 each, though many opted out to pursue further litigation.
For European investors and media companies, the New York lawsuit is a critical test of how to protect legacy assets from American AI developers. If the California “fair use” precedent holds nationally, European publishers could lose the ability to monetize their vast archives. A contrary ruling in New York would preserve a major revenue stream and force AI firms to negotiate licensing deals, fundamentally altering the economics of artificial intelligence development.
