News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Sony Music, Warner Chappell Sue Anthropic Over Alleged Copyright Infringement In Claude AI Training
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have sued Anthropic, alleging the AI company unlawfully obtained and used tens of thousands of copyrighted musical works to train Claude. The publishers claim material was sourced through scraping and torrent networks and seek potentially billions of dollars in damages Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, alleging that the artificial intelligence company unlawfully obtained and used copyrighted musical works to train its Claude AI models. According to Business Insider, the case, filed in a federal court in Northern California, also names Anthropic co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann. Anthropic has rejected the allegations and said it plans to defend itself in court. Music Publishers Allege Large-Scale Copyright Infringement The publishers allege that Anthropic accessed tens of thousands of copyrighted musical compositions without obtaining permission. The works cited in the complaint include songs such as Eye of the Tiger, September, Uptown Funk, Hallelujah, Taylor Swift's Paper Rings and Mariah Carey's All I Want for Christmas Is You. According to the lawsuit, copyrighted material was allegedly acquired through torrent networks and large-scale online scraping. The publishers also claim Anthropic obtained content from digital archives such as Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror, while lyrics were allegedly collected from websites including Musixmatch and LyricFind. The complaint further alleges that Claude can generate song lyrics that are identical or substantially similar to copyrighted originals, potentially creating competition for human songwriters and rights holders. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell are seeking statutory damages of as much as $150,000 for each work allegedly infringed wilfully. They are also seeking up to $25,000 for each alleged violation involving the removal or alteration of copyright management information. Depending on the number of works and the court's findings, the financial liability could potentially reach billions of dollars. The publishers have also requested a jury trial, destruction of allegedly infringing copies and information detailing the material used to train Claude. The lawsuit comes soon after Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with authors and publishers over claims concerning pirated books used to train its AI systems. The music publishers are citing that litigation as part of their argument that AI companies should acquire copyrighted creative works legally and compensate rights holders when required.
Anthropic confidentially files for US IPO, prospectus expected after Labor Day
Anthropic, the AI lab based in San Francisco, is reportedly advancing its preparations for an initial public offering (IPO) as AI stocks show signs of recovery. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding Anthropic's IPO prospects, the broader IPO pipeline appears to be facing delays, potentially impacting market expectations. The company, known for its AI products Claude and Claude Code, confidentially filed for a U.S. IPO in June 2026, with recent reports suggesting that an official prospectus may be released after Labor Day. However, the timing and valuation of this move remain uncertain as the general IPO market adapts to current economic conditions. Activity around Anthropic's IPO prospects shows divergent views. While some market participants appear to support the notion of a substantial market cap for Anthropic, recent pricing movements suggest a moderate decrease in expected market cap odds. Particularly, the market for Anthropic's market cap being below $1.25 trillion at the IPO close saw a decrease, with odds dropping from 3% to 2.1% over the past 24 hours. In the broader context, the AI industry has seen a resurgence with rising stock prices, yet the timing of Anthropic's public debut remains crucial. Markets are closely monitoring Anthropic's actions and regulatory developments, which may influence the overall IPO landscape in the coming months. Key Takeaways * Market data suggests a moderate decline in expectations for Anthropic's market cap to be less than $1.25 trillion at IPO close. * Anthropic's IPO progress appears consistent with a potential listing later in 2026, but broader IPO pipeline delays could impact the timeline. * AI stock prices are on the rise, reflecting renewed interest in the sector despite uncertainties in the IPO market. What to Watch Market participants are closely watching for any official announcement from Anthropic regarding its IPO prospectus and potential listing date. Developments in regulatory filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be crucial in determining the IPO timeline. Additionally, continued performance in the AI sector may influence market sentiment and valuation expectations for Anthropic's public debut. Further adjustments to pricing could occur pending any new strategic moves or financial disclosures by Anthropic. Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Anthropic becomes focal point of national political debate amid legal fight with US government
A federal judge sided with the AI company after the Pentagon labeled it a supply-chain risk for refusing to drop ethical safeguards on military AI use. Anthropic, the AI company behind the Claude model, just won a major court battle against the US government. And in doing so, it accidentally became the most politically charged company in Silicon Valley. On August 27, 2026, a federal judge ruled that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic as a supply-chain risk was unlawful retaliation against the company's First Amendment rights. The ruling caps months of escalating tension between the Trump administration and one of the most valuable private companies on the planet, currently valued at roughly $965 billion. How a $200 million contract turned into a constitutional crisis The story starts with a deal that never closed. Earlier in 2026, Anthropic and the Pentagon were negotiating a contract worth approximately $200 million for classified AI applications. Anthropic insisted on maintaining ethical safeguards, specifically refusing to allow its AI models to be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons systems. The Pentagon wanted fewer restrictions. Anthropic held firm. In February 2026, the Pentagon responded by designating Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. That designation is typically reserved for companies with foreign ownership concerns or cybersecurity vulnerabilities, not firms that negotiate too hard on terms. Anthropic sued, arguing the designation was retaliatory. The federal court agreed. The politics of saying no CEO Dario Amodei framed the company's position in moral terms, stating that Anthropic could not "in good conscience accede" to government terms that conflicted with its ethical standards. He emphasized the company's commitment to national security while drawing a clear line at what it considers dangerous applications. Employees at rival companies including OpenAI and Google publicly backed Anthropic's position. On the other side, critics labeled Anthropic as "radical left" for refusing to give the military broader access to its technology. A $965 billion company with a point to prove The company closed a Series H funding round in May 2026, raising $65 billion and reaching a valuation of $965 billion. The company's estimated run-rate revenue sits at approximately $47 billion. An IPO is widely expected, and the legal saga with the Pentagon adds both risk and narrative to that eventual offering.
Anthropic win reaffirms private sector's right to put conditions on government dealings
In a court victory the Trump administration effectively handed to the plaintiff, a federal judge cited First Amendment concerns in slapping down the federal government's designation of AI company Anthropic as a "supply chain risk to national security." The company also won a due process claim. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made clear their intent to punish the company for its ethical limitations on how its technology can be used when they banned federal agencies and contractors from doing business with Anthropic. The White House has been reminded that government officials can't do that in the U.S. When Private Ethics Meet Government Arrogance Anthropic has a longstanding commitment to keeping the use of what the firm's founders regard as potentially dangerous AI technology subject to ethical safeguards. The company restricts how its AI is used by all customers, including the U.S. military. In a February press release, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei detailed the points of disagreement between the company and the Trump administration. He emphasized his company's position that "using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values" and that "frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America's warfighters and civilians at risk." He added that Anthropic has turned away large contracts with companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party because of ethical concerns and that similar considerations apply to all potential partners, including the U.S. government. In response, President Trump raged on Truth Social that "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS!" He added, "I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic's technology." Likewise, Hegseth objected on X that Anthropic and Amodei"have chosen duplicity. Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of 'effective altruism,' they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission." He added that "the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic's models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic" and until that time "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." Agree or disagree with Anthropic's positions, it's clear the company has a corporate philosophy guiding how it allows its technology to be used. The administration doesn't like those constraints, and rather than work within them or else find another vendor that places fewer restrictions on its products, the government sought to bludgeon the company into changing its policies. Government officials in the U.S. aren't allowed to do that. 'Undisputed Facts' Establish First and Fifth Amendment Violations "The undisputed facts establish that Anthropic's protected speech, on a matter of great public importance, was a substantial motivating factor for Defendants' speech-chilling conduct, and that Defendants would not have taken the retaliatory action absent their desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute," Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote last week in her decision. "Agency Defendants began complying with the Presidential Directive -- or in the case of [the Department of Defense], began complying with the Supply Chain Designation -- before Anthropic had been provided with any notice or opportunity to challenge the decisions" and therefore "Anthropic has shown that the Agency Defendants' actions violate due process." Lin noted that the government is free to choose any AI vendor it wishes. What the it can't do is punish companies that place limitations on the use of their products and embrace philosophies at odds with those of officials: "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics." Lin entered summary judgments for Anthropic's First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims. In the order of final relief, the government is "enjoined from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the Challenged Actions." Lin also caught the administration abusing government processes by designating Anthropic as a "supply chain risk to national security" even as it continued to negotiate with the company. "Defendants do not submit any evidence explaining why the government would seek to collaborate on these types of projects with a company believed to pose an intolerable national security risk," she commented. Administration Officials 'Have Not Even Tried To Hide' Punishing Dissent As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression pointed out in March, when legal proceedings began, "to contract with the government, and to avoid the supply chain risk designation that would undermine its ability to contract with and engage expressively with third parties, Anthropic must change its point of view and espouse its agreement with Department of Defense policy....The Secretary of Defense and other government officials involved in the designation have not even tried to hide that they are trying to put Anthropic out of business merely for its dissent, not for any actual supply chain risk." That blatant weaponization of the power to restrict a company's dealings not just with federal agencies unrelated to the dispute over military use, but also with any other firms that do business with the government, is not how free societies work. Private companies have no obligation to do business with the government at all, just as government agencies are free to deal with preferred vendors. Barrett Firearms, for example, has a decades-old policy against selling its products to government agencies in jurisdictions that don't allow civilians to own large-bore guns. Anthropic's restrictions are a continuation of the sort of ethical boundaries companies have long imposed. When private companies place limitations on the use of their products, government officials are free to accept the restrictions, negotiate for terms to their taste, or walk away and do business with somebody else. As this court decision emphasizes, what officials can't do is punish people in the private sector for embracing ethical standards at odds with those of politicians. Trump and Hegseth may not like it, but the First Amendment is on the side of businesses putting conditions on government contracts -- or just telling officials to take a hike. Perhaps more private firms should do exactly that.
Sony Music and Warner sue Anthropic for intellectual property theft
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have moved to sue Anthropic, the home of AI model Claude, for intellectual property theft. The complaint, filed on August 28th, names Anthropic co-founder and chief executive officer Dario Amodei and co-founder Benjamin Mann as individual defendants. The suit alleges that Anthropic conducted a "brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works. on a massive scale in order to develop, operate, and reap enormous profits from Anthropic's 'Claude' series of artificial intelligence ('AI') models". Sony and Warner have deemed Anthropic's conduct "one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history". The team is seeking damages for "tens of thousands" of copyrighted works, asking for up to $150,000 per work, as well as $25,000 for each instance when identifiable copyright data was stripped. In total, the intended damages could amount to several billion dollars should the court rule in favour of Sony and Warner's case. Anthropic has denied the claims brought against it, writing in a short statement, "We disagree with the publishers' claims, and we intend to defend ourselves robustly in court." Specific songs named in this suit include Bon Jovi's 'Livin' on a Prayer', Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell's 'Ain't No Mountain High Enough', Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' and Taylor Swift's 'Paper Rings'. However, Anthropic has also faced multiple lawsuits from Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKBO, as well as separate suits from BMG and Round Hill Music, all in the same area. Notably, in June 2025, a court found that Anthropic had downloaded over seven million pirated books to train its AI models. As a result, the company was ordered to pay a staggering $1.5billion. In other AI news, Australia recently moved to ban all AI-generated music from its charts after Josh Fawaz's cover of the classic Madonna hit, 'Like a Prayer', became the most-played song on Australian radio, reaching number four on two ARIA charts last month.
Polymarket says surveillance systems ready for U.S. midterm trading
Polymarket has strengthened its trade surveillance and investigation systems ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, as the prediction market operator faces scrutiny over insider trading and American access to its international platform. Reuters reported on Aug. 31 that Polymarket's new global head of investigations and intelligence, Shana Bautista, said the company has systems capable of identifying unusual trading activity as election-related markets attract closer attention. "I'm confident that I'm able to get the resources and the support I need," Bautista told Reuters in her first interview since joining Polymarket in June. "I can tell you that we have the systems in place to be able to identify anomalous activity when the midterms do come." Polymarket prepares surveillance systems for U.S. midterms Bautista, a former FBI investigator and Coinbase analyst, is overseeing Polymarket's investigative work as U.S. lawmakers examine whether prediction markets could provide a venue for trading based on sensitive government or political information. Congress has already moved toward restricting lawmakers from participating in such markets. Crypto.news previously reported that Rep. Bryan Steil was seeking to include a prediction market trading ban in a proposal that would restrict stock trading by members of Congress and their families. Steil said lawmakers should not be trading contracts tied to elections or public policy. His proposal followed a unanimous Senate vote in April barring senators and their staff from trading on prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Questions over insider access have extended beyond lawmakers. A study published earlier this year examined how restrictions could affect the information produced by prediction market prices, arguing that enforcement should distinguish between traders who possess private information and participants who can influence the outcome of an event. The research found that a blanket ban could reduce the information available in market prices, while recommending stronger penalties for participants capable of changing an outcome themselves. The findings came as Polymarket and Kalshi faced increased insider trading scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers. Polymarket says its surveillance program uses several sources of information to detect potentially malicious activity. Bautista said the company combines machine learning, blockchain analytics, trade surveillance, open-source research and third-party services. A new webpage will provide more public information about those controls and explain how the company works with law enforcement, according to a Polymarket spokesperson cited by Reuters. "The market integrity program itself is not new, but what we're putting on the record now is considerably more detail about how it operates," Bautista said. Blockchain activity gives Polymarket investigators a trading trail Trades on Polymarket's international platform settle on a blockchain, leaving transaction records publicly visible even when the people controlling individual wallets remain anonymous. Critics have argued that pseudonymous wallet-based trading can create opportunities for misconduct. Bautista told Reuters that blockchain records can provide investigators with useful information about trading behavior and movements of funds between addresses. Polymarket says it has referred more than 100 cases to law enforcement. One involved a wallet linked to a U.S. soldier who prosecutors say used classified information to trade contracts concerning the capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro. A federal judge in August paused the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's civil case tied to the soldier while a related criminal proceeding continues. Prosecutors allege that about $409,881 was earned through 13 Venezuela-related Polymarket trades, according to the CFTC case proceedings. The defendant has pleaded not guilty and challenged whether the prediction contracts involved in the case legally qualify as swaps. Bautista said other referrals involved possible insider wagers concerning U.S. military actions in Iran. Reuters reported earlier in August that several trades linked to military developments had raised questions over whether some participants possessed information that was not publicly available. Political concern has extended to federal employees with access to sensitive information. More than 40 Democratic lawmakers previously asked the CFTC and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics for guidance restricting federal employees from using nonpublic information to trade prediction contracts. Their letter raised concerns involving political events, military developments and other contracts where government employees could have access to information before the public. Polymarket says controls block most U.S. users Keeping American users away from Polymarket's international platform remains another enforcement issue for the company. The CFTC reached a settlement with Polymarket in 2022 after finding that it had offered event-based binary options contracts without registering with the regulator. Polymarket agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty and wind down markets that did not comply with U.S. law. The settlement required the company to prevent U.S. customers from using its international operation. Bautista told Reuters that she believes Polymarket's current systems are sufficient to stop the vast majority of American users from accessing the international platform. "It is difficult at scale to be able to consistently and always evade all of the guardrails we have," Bautista said. "I do not see it being a really prevalent issue." Blockchain research has raised questions over how effectively those restrictions work. On-chain research firm Allium estimated that U.S.-linked wallets traded about $571 million in political contracts on Polymarket over a one-year period despite the restrictions. The United States represented the largest national group identified in its analysis. Allium cautioned that it could assign country labels to only a small share of political-market wallets and described its estimates as directional because blockchain activity cannot establish the identity or physical location of every trader. The findings renewed attention on U.S. wallet activity on Polymarket's international venue. Federal scrutiny of the company has changed under President Donald Trump's administration. Regulators dropped an investigation into whether Polymarket had breached its 2022 settlement, and CEO Shayne Coplan said at the time that the company had been cleared of wrongdoing. Polymarket has taken a separate route to serve American customers through a regulated exchange. The company returned to the U.S. market after acquiring a CFTC-registered exchange last year, creating an operation separate from the international blockchain platform that remains closed to U.S. users. State lawsuits target prediction market sports contracts While federal regulators oversee event contracts under commodities law, prediction market companies are fighting a separate series of disputes with state authorities over sports-related contracts. Several states have argued that sports event contracts offered by prediction market platforms amount to gambling products that require state licenses. Prediction market companies have disputed that position, maintaining that qualifying event contracts fall under federal commodities regulation and CFTC jurisdiction. The conflict has produced lawsuits seeking to stop prediction market operators from offering sports contracts without state gambling licenses. Polymarket's regulated U.S. operation and its international platform remain separate. The international service uses blockchain-based settlement and wallet trading, while the U.S. exchange operates within the CFTC regulatory framework. Bautista told Reuters that Polymarket intends to provide more public detail about its surveillance program as the midterm elections approach, including how the company uses blockchain analytics, machine learning and trade monitoring to identify suspicious activity and refer cases to law enforcement.
Sony Accuses Anthropic Of 'brazen Campaign' To Train Claude In His Music - And Wants Up To $150,000 Per Song
Sony Music and Warner Chappell filed a lawsuit against Anthropic on Friday. Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Sony Music and Warner Chappell want Anthropic to pay. The publishers filed a lawsuit against Anthropic on Friday in a district court in Northern California. Anthropic co-founders Dario Amodei And Benjamin Mann were also mentioned in the file. "Defendants Anthropic and its founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann engaged in a brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works on a massive scale to develop, exploit, and reap vast profits from Anthropic's 'Claude' series of artificial intelligence ("AI") models," the companies said in the complaint. Anthropic denied the allegations in a statement. "We disagree with the publishers' claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in court," the company said. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music said Anthropic has collected "thousands and thousands" of copyrighted songs, including the '80s anthem "Eye of the Tiger," Marvin Gaye's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You," and Taylor Swift's "Paper Rings." In the lawsuit, the publishers said Anthropic did that their copyrighted works pirated through a range of methods including two digital archives, Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. In June 2025, a judge ruled that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million pirated books to train Claude. "Among the many millions of books that Defendants torrented from these illegal pirate websites were books containing the lyrics and sheet music of hundreds or more copyrighted musical compositions from music publishers, identified in Exhibit A. These works include 'Livin' On a Prayer,' 'September,' 'Great Balls of Fire,' 'Ramblin' Man' and 'Hallelujah,'" the lawsuit said. As a result Claude models generate identical or nearly identical copies of the copyrighted work in their responses to users, the companies claimed. In the lawsuit, the companies said that training Claude on copyrighted content will allow him to produce AI-generated lyrics that will eventually compete with human-made songs. Sony Music and Warner Chappell requested a jury trial. They are seeking statutory damages from Anthropic, including up to $150,000 for each composition used to train Claude. "Even the most revolutionary technologies must develop within the boundaries of the law, and Anthropic's Claude models are no different," the companies said in the complaint. The AI industry has been the target of a slew of copyright lawsuits since major language models like Claude and ChatGPT began transforming society. Technology companies need large amounts of data to train their AI models, and are doing everything they can to acquire it. Recently, historians and archivists have accused AI companies of acquiring large numbers of ancient books and importing them into their LLMs, destroying them in the process. Last September, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion for authors to settle a class action lawsuit regarding illegal works. OpenAI has also had to deal with this various copyright cases in recent years, including one from The New York Times and another from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Ridley Scott says Alien 4 'killed' the franchise before he revived it with Prometheus
Ridley Scott believes the Alien film series was dead and buried before he made 2012's Prometheus. The British filmmaker directed the original Alien, released in 1979, which followed the crew of a commercial spaceship as they encountered a deadly extraterrestrial creature. The sci-fi horror became a blockbuster franchise, spawning three sequels and the Alien vs. Predator crossover films. In a new interview, Scott claimed he brought the franchise back to life after 1997's Alien Resurrection performed badly at the box office. "I did the best one by far," the director told French outlet Brut, definitively. "Full stop. End of the f***ing story. "Then they let it die," he continued. "After [Alien] 4, they killed it. So I sat there thinking, I'm going to bring it back. So I sat down with a very good writer; two guys [and] eventually ended up with Damon Lindelof, and we caught fire and wrote Prometheus. "So I suddenly bring [it] back where it all began. Then I thought that shook the cage a bit and I did the next one, Alien Covenant. So now it's up and running." Acting as a prequel to Alien, Prometheus comprised a blockbuster cast including Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, and Charlize Theron. It followed a team of scientists who travel to a distant planet searching for the origins of humanity, alongside David (Fassbender), an android whose mysterious loyalties become increasingly unsettling. A sequel, Alien: Covenant (2017), saw Fassbender reprise the role. On the review aggregation site, Prometheus sits behind Aliens, Alien and the 2024 interquel Alien: Romulus, with an overall critics' score of 73 percent. Alien 2 and 3 were directed by James Cameron and David Fincher, respectively, while Jean-Pierre Jeunet directed the fourth film, Alien Resurrection, starring Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder. It grossed just $47.8 million in the United States and Canada, making it the lowest-grossing installment of the Alien series in that market and was broadly panned by critics. Writer Joss Whedon disassociated himself from the project, saying in a 2005 interview: "It wasn't so much that they'd changed the script -- it's that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable." In a 2022 interview with The Independent marking the film's 25th anniversary, Jeunet said he had recently rewatched Resurrection and was pleasantly surprised. "I was a little bit concerned to watch my film - maybe I won't like it?" he said. "No, it was great! I have a lot of shots that I love. For the people who don't like it, I can say, 'f*** you!'" Scott is set to return to the Alien universe with Fassbender for the conclusion to his prequel trilogy. "Actually, I suddenly went back and got involved," he told French outlet AlloCiné last week. "The one that just came out [2024's Alien: Romulus] was OK. I think it needs some help. So, I've gone back in." Scott continued: "I've already got a footprint for the next Alien. We did Prometheus, and then Alien: Covenant. So, I'm picking up where we left off in Covenant with Michael Fassbender, who now thinks he's Ozymandias." The news comes after FX renewed Noah Hawley's TV spinoff Alien: Earth for a second season.
Anthropic Warns: Infostealer Malware Draining Claude AI Sessions Data-Stealing Threat Emerges - Diaspora Digital Media (DDM News) - Nigeria Breaking News, Africa and World News and Updates
Tech Firm Anthropic Warns Malware Drains AI Sessions Hackers are using infostealer malware to hijack active Claude browser sessions and drain user limits. Consequently, the tech firm Anthropic is forcing logouts, removing payment methods, and issuing full refunds to protect user accounts. Anthropic warns that infostealer malware is hijacking active Claude AI sessions, bypassing passwords to drain tech account limits and data. Specifically, the tech firm Anthropic is warning users about a serious cyber threat. Hackers are actively stealing Claude AI sessions from infected computers. Indeed, attackers use infostealer malware to drain daily account limits. As a result, they bypass passwords and steal sensitive data. Malware Bypasses Standard Security Essentially, infostealer malware targets active browser sessions on infected computers. For example, these programs copy login cookies directly from browsers. Therefore, hackers skip normal password checks entirely during the attack. Specifically, they easily bypass complex two-factor authentication security measures. Indeed, attackers gain full access to the compromised Claude account. Consequently, they drain API limits and abuse paid account features. As a result, victims lose money and private conversation data. Furthermore, Anthropic confirms the malware comes from outside web sources. Specifically, users often download these viruses through illegal pirated games. Additionally, fake software installers remain a major daily infection route. In fact, the AI platform itself remains completely safe today. However, a stolen session cookie grants immediate unauthorized account access. Therefore, users unknowingly expose their accounts while browsing the web. Of course, hackers exploit this trust to ruin digital lives. Anthropic Takes Quick Action Meanwhile, the company is actively fighting this growing security issue. Specifically, Anthropic forces sudden logouts for all affected user accounts. Through this, they kill the stolen session and block hackers. Additionally, the platform removes saved payment methods to stop charges. As a result, Gridinsoft Blogs reports that users receive full refunds. Indeed, this rapid response saves many people from financial ruin. Consequently, the tech community praises Anthropic for these fast actions. Subsequently, affected users receive detailed warning emails from the company. For example, a Reddit user shared their official warning notice. Indeed, the system flags suspicious activity before draining API credits. Specifically, the software detects sudden usage spikes from strange locations. However, simply logging out does not remove the actual virus. Therefore, victims must clean their hard drives to stay safe. Of course, ignoring the malware will just cause another breach. Dangerous Infostealer Families Identified Specifically, researchers identified several common malware families behind these attacks. For example, Windows users face threats from Vidar and RedLine. Additionally, LummaC2 and StealC actively hunt for saved browser data. In contrast, Mac users face attacks from the dangerous Atomic Stealer. Consequently, India Today Tech urges users to check system processes. Indeed, these silent programs hide deep inside normal computer files. As a result, many antivirus programs struggle to find them. Additionally, these dangerous programs steal much more than AI sessions. Specifically, they collect passwords for email and online banking accounts. Of course, victims face massive financial risks from these breaches. Therefore, security experts advise using strong antivirus software immediately. For example, running a full system scan helps find hidden threats. Meanwhile, related U.S. drone tech markets face similar industry challenges. Indeed, global cybersecurity threats affect both software and hardware sectors. How Tech Users Can Protect Themselves Ultimately, personal device security remains the best defense against infostealers. For example, users must avoid downloading cracked software from forums. Indeed, pirated games often hide dangerous viruses inside their files. Therefore, people should only download apps from official verified websites. Additionally, suspicious browser extensions often carry hidden malware tracking codes. As a result, this simple cautious habit stops most infections. Specifically, clean browsing prevents hackers from stealing private session cookies. Furthermore, users should regularly review their active account sessions online. Specifically, they must check for weird usage limit drops daily. Indeed, if usage drains mysteriously, hackers might control the account. Consequently, users must log out everywhere and change their passwords. Through this, they can regain control and secure their data. For example, running a complete malware sweep ensures system safety. Ultimately, staying alert prevents these stressful and costly cyber attacks. To conclude, this serious Anthropic malware threat requires immediate attention. Therefore, tech users must secure their computers against dangerous infostealers. Specifically, maintaining strong antivirus protection keeps online AI sessions safe. As a result, people can use advanced digital tools securely.
Anthropic expands into health care to boost investor confidence
The AI lab's HIPAA-compliant Claude for Healthcare platform is signing hospital deals and posting real efficiency numbers as Anthropic's valuation approaches $1 trillion. Anthropic launched Claude for Healthcare on January 11, 2026, a HIPAA-compliant version of its Claude model built specifically to handle protected health information and plug into the medical databases that clinicians actually use. What Claude for Healthcare actually does The platform integrates with the CMS Coverage Database and PubMed, which means it can pull from federal insurance coverage data and peer-reviewed medical literature in the same workflow. Claude for Healthcare is designed to serve four distinct groups: healthcare providers, payers, health tech companies, and consumers. Anthropic released Claude for Life Sciences in October 2025, giving pharmaceutical and biotech companies a specialized model before extending the offering to the broader healthcare sector. Partnerships announced in 2026 include Optum, UST's CarePath, Qualified Health tied to the UT System, Elation Health, Banner Health, Carta Healthcare, and Bristol Myers Squibb. The numbers hospitals are reporting Case study data released in late August 2026 gives the clearest picture of what Claude is doing on the ground. Elation Health, an electronic health record platform, reported 61% faster chart insights after integrating Claude. Carta Healthcare, which focuses on clinical data abstraction, posted 66% faster processing times. At Banner Health, one of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the US, 85% of users reported meaningful time savings. Anthropic has opened Claude access to scientists at no charge or at reduced rates as of August 2026. Frontier biology models, however, require vetting by the US government before access is granted. The investor logic behind the healthcare push Anthropic's valuation reached approximately $965 billion following a funding round in May 2026. Anthropic is reportedly preparing for an IPO, and the healthcare case studies released in August 2026 look timed to build that case.
Sony Music and Warner Chappell sue Anthropic over alleged copyright violations The Mainstream
Anthropic is facing a new legal challenge in the US, with Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music accusing the AI company of using copyrighted works without permission to train its Claude AI assistant. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Anthropic co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann are also named as individual defendants. The complaint alleges that Anthropic used unauthorised copies of books and music publishers' works as training material. It claims Mann downloaded at least 5 million pirated books from Library Genesis in 2021, while Anthropic employees allegedly obtained another 2 million books from Pirate Library Mirror in 2022. The publishers also accuse Anthropic of "scraping" song lyrics from licensed platforms including MusixMatch and LyricFind. The complaint further alleges that the company "destructively scanned" millions of second-hand books and used datasets such as Common Crawl, "The Pile," and Books3. According to the complaint, Mann downloaded pirated books from Books3 on behalf of Anthropic "to avoid the trouble of paying for them, hoping they might prove useful for training large language models (LLMs) or something else." The lawsuit lists songs allegedly found in Anthropic's training data, including "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," "All I Want for Christmas Is You," "Eye of the Tiger," "Here Comes Santa Claus," and "Paper Rings." Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music are seeking damages of up to $150,000 (about Rs. 1.43 crore) per infringed work and up to $25,000 (about Rs. 23.80 crore) for each Copyright Act violation. The publishers are seeking a jury trial and want all infringing copies of their copyrighted works in Anthropic's possession destroyed under court supervision. They are also seeking an order requiring Anthropic to provide details of its training data and the known capabilities of its AI model. Also read: Viksit Workforce for a Viksit Bharat Do Follow: The Mainstream LinkedIn | The Mainstream Facebook | The Mainstream Youtube | The Mainstream Twitter About us: The Mainstream is a premier platform delivering the latest updates and informed perspectives across the technology business and cyber landscape. Built on research-driven, thought leadership and original intellectual property, The Mainstream also curates summits & conferences that convene decision makers to explore how technology reshapes industries and leadership. With a growing presence in India and globally across the Middle East, Africa, ASEAN, the USA, the UK and Australia, The Mainstream carries a vision to bring the latest happenings and insights to 8.2 billion people and to place technology at the centre of conversation for leaders navigating the future.
Sam Bankman-Fried Circle's Anthropic Shares Sold Before Value Exploded - Startup Fortune
Federal prosecutors seized personal Anthropic stakes from Sam Bankman-Fried's inner circle, including Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, as part of their criminal sentencing in 2024. Those shares got sold off alongside FTX's own $500 million stake, years before Anthropic's valuation rocketed to $965 billion. Nishad Singh paid $40,000 for early Anthropic stock in 2022, then forfeited it as a convicted felon before it could turn into a fortune. The shares seized from Sam Bankman-Fried's inner circle were sold off in 2024, right before Anthropic's valuation exploded past $965 billion. Anthropic closed a $65 billion funding round at a $965 billion valuation on May 28, 2026, according to the company's own announcement and reporting from NBC News and TechCrunch. That number sits on top of a strange footnote from the FTX collapse. Some of the earliest money into Anthropic came from Sam Bankman-Fried and the people who ran his fraud alongside him, and a slice of what they personally held in the AI company was seized by federal prosecutors and folded into the pool of assets used to repay FTX's victims. The story actually splits into two separate stakes, and conflating them is where most retellings go wrong. The first stake was corporate. In April 2022, Bankman-Fried personally led Anthropic's Series B round and wrote a $500 million check through Alameda Research and FTX, buying roughly 8% of the company. That was FTX's institutional position. Once the exchange collapsed that November, it became bankruptcy estate property. The estate sold the bulk of it in March 2024 for $884 million, with Abu Dhabi's ATIC Third International Investment Company as the largest buyer, alongside Jane Street, HOF Capital, the Ford Foundation and funds managed by Fidelity, according to CNBC. A second tranche went for $452 million that June. Combined, FTX's own stake fetched roughly $1.3 billion. The second stake was personal, and it's the one prosecutors actually forfeited as criminal punishment. Caroline Ellison, the former Alameda CEO who testified against Bankman-Fried, personally held about $10 million worth of Anthropic shares. That stake became the core asset behind her settlement obligations when she was sentenced to two years in prison in September 2024 and ordered to forfeit $11 billion jointly with her co-conspirators. Nishad Singh, FTX's former director of engineering, held Anthropic Series B preferred stock he'd bought through a SAFE for exactly $40,000 in May 2022. Court records tied to his October 2024 sentencing, where he avoided prison entirely after cooperating extensively with prosecutors, list that stake among the assets he agreed to give up, alongside a house and his crypto holdings. Bernie Sanders wants the government to own half of OpenAI and Anthropic and the AI industry is already pricing in the risk Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, proposing a one-time 50 percent equity tax on OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI that would give the federal government board seats and voting shares. The bill dropped the same day Anthropic confidentially filed for an IPO, forcing the industry to treat legislative risk as a... - how to price a SaaS product for enterprise - cold email template that gets replies from investors Those forfeited personal shares never sat in a government vault waiting for Anthropic's valuation to climb. They got swept into the same FTX estate asset pool as the corporate stake and sold off in the 2024 tranches, years before anyone was calling Anthropic a trillion-dollar company in waiting. Who actually captured the upside That timing is the real story here. Anthropic was valued around $18 billion when Bankman-Fried wrote his check in 2022. By the time FTX's estate liquidated its position in 2024, the company's climb had turned $500 million into $1.3 billion, a decent return on paper. But Anthropic didn't stop there. It raised money at a $183 billion valuation in September 2025, signed a term sheet for $350 billion that January, closed a $30 billion round at $380 billion in February 2026, and then closed a $65 billion Series H at $965 billion on May 28, 2026, led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital, with run-rate revenue above $47 billion. The company has flagged October 2026 as its target window for an IPO, according to reporting from Forbes and TechCrunch. Run that same appreciation against the 8% stake FTX sold off in 2024, and it would be worth somewhere north of $77 billion today, a figure that's circulated widely in coverage of the case. Nobody at FTX, and nobody in Bankman-Fried's inner circle, captured that gain. Abu Dhabi's sovereign fund did. So did Jane Street and Fidelity's funds. The government didn't get rich off this either. Prosecutors' job was to make victims whole as fast as the process allowed, not to speculate on where AI valuations were headed next. Selling in 2024 rather than holding was the legally sound call, even if it looks, in hindsight, like selling Amazon stock in 1998. Frankly, that's the real lesson here, not that the government "accidentally became an Anthropic investor." It didn't. It forfeited stolen property, converted it to cash as fast as the law allowed, and handed that money to the roughly one million customers FTX defrauded. The asymmetry in this story is real. It's just not the one most people assume. It wasn't the government or Sam Bankman-Fried's circle who got rich off Anthropic's rise. It was whoever had the balance sheet to buy a distressed AI stake in 2024, and the patience to hold it through 2026. Also read: Singapore Still Can't Fix Its Developer Shortage Even With Vibe Coding Tools * Bank of America Says TSMC's 2027 Capex Could Reach $85 Billion * Andrew Bailey Warns G20 That AI Cyberattacks Threaten Financial Stability
Sony Music, Warner Chappell sue Anthropic over copyright infringement
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have filed a copyright lawsuit against Anthropic. | Image: Bloomberg Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have sued Anthropic, accusing the AI company of carrying out large-scale scraping, torrenting, and downloading of copyrighted works to train its Claude AI models. The lawsuit, filed in a Northern California federal court, also names Anthropic co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann. Anthropic has disputed the allegations and said it intends to defend itself robustly in court, according to Business Insider. What do Sony and Warner allege? The publishers claim Anthropic obtained and used "tens of thousands" of copyrighted musical compositions without permission, including works associated with well-known songs such as Eye of the Tiger, September, Uptown Funk, Hallelujah, Taylor Swift's Paper Rings, and Mariah Carey's All I Want for Christmas Is You. The complaint alleges that Anthropic obtained copyrighted material through torrent networks and large-scale scraping, including material from digital archives such as Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. It also alleges that the company scraped lyrics from websites including Musixmatch and LyricFind. The publishers further claim that Claude can reproduce copyrighted lyrics either verbatim or substantially as written, and they argue that such outputs could compete with music created by human songwriters. Also Read Why India may revive 'Most-Favoured-Nation' rule in bilateral treaties Djokovic crashes out in US Open first round, 25th Grand Slam wait continues September tax calendar: Key TDS, advance tax and tax audit deadlines Zomato bans analogue dairy dishes, warns restaurants of delisting Tim Cook's last day at Apple: How he took the company beyond the iPhone What damages are being sought? Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell are seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work they say was wilfully infringed, while they are also seeking up to $25,000 for each alleged removal or alteration of copyright management information. The potential financial exposure could run into billions of dollars, although any final damages would depend on the court's findings. The publishers have also requested a jury trial and are seeking other remedies, including the destruction of infringing copies and an accounting of Claude's training data. The stakes rise for Anthropic The case comes shortly after Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with authors and publishers over allegations involving pirated books used to train Claude. A US judge had found that Anthropic downloaded more than seven million pirated books, although the earlier case also raised a distinction between using copyrighted material for AI training and illegally acquiring that material. The music publishers are using that earlier litigation as part of their case, while arguing that AI companies must obtain copyrighted creative works lawfully and compensate rights holders where required. Other recent copyright lawsuits against major AI companies Anthropic is not alone in facing legal challenges over AI training data. Recent cases include: * OpenAI: WikiHow sued OpenAI in August 2026, alleging that more than 11,000 instructional articles were scraped without permission to train ChatGPT * Meta: Publishers including Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill sued Meta in May 2026, alleging that copyrighted books and journal articles were used to train its Llama models * Google: Publishers and authors have also filed a class-action lawsuit accusing Google of using copyrighted works to train its Gemini AI platform More From This Section Nepal floods kill 903, leave 4,250 missing; Bihar remains on high alert China's factory activity improves in August but remains in contraction Nepal asked China for data on glacier risks months before deadly floods Google Maps changes Lake Ontario to 'Lake America' for US users Iran's supreme leader urges Muslim nations to unite against US, Israel
Anthropic wins court ruling against Pentagon blacklisting
SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.
Judge calls Pentagon's Anthropic blacklist 'illegal and baseless'
Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation SAN FRANCISCO, California: A federal judge has blocked the Pentagon from blacklisting Anthropic, ruling in favor of the AI company in its dispute with the U.S. military over restrictions on using its Claude models. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found in a 59-page order on August 27 that the Pentagon's decision to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk was "illegal and baseless." "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote. Anthropic sued in California federal court in March, alleging that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded his authority in imposing the designation. The government can use the label for companies that expose military systems to possible infiltration or sabotage by adversaries. The Pentagon's move blocked Anthropic from certain military contracts and followed the company's refusal to allow the military to use Claude AI models for U.S. surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic executives have said the designation could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business and reputational harm. Anthropic welcomed the court's decision and said it remained "focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Anthropic has argued that AI models are not reliable enough to be safely deployed in autonomous weapons and that it opposes domestic surveillance because it violates rights. The Pentagon has said private companies should not be able to constrain military action. The designation marked the first time a U.S. company had been publicly declared a supply-chain risk under a government procurement law intended to protect military systems from foreign sabotage. In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic alleged that the government retaliated against its views on AI safety, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. It also argued that it was denied an opportunity to challenge the designation, violating its Fifth Amendment right to due process. The company said the Pentagon's decision was unlawful, unsupported by facts and inconsistent with the military's previous praise of Claude. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that Anthropic's refusal to remove its restrictions could create uncertainty about how the Pentagon could use Claude and risk disabling military systems during operations. The government said the designation resulted from Anthropic's refusal to accept contractual terms, not its views on AI safety. Anthropic also has a separate lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., challenging another Pentagon supply-chain risk designation that could exclude the company from civilian government contracts.