Elvis Presley’s music rights holders have sued AI company Anthropic for allegedly using 274 of his songs to train Claude without permission. They are seeking up to $41.1 million in damages.
The lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2026, in a federal court in San Francisco. Authentic Brands Group (ABG), which controls much of Presley’s intellectual property, filed the case with other rights holders.
The plaintiffs claim Anthropic used the songs without licenses or payment. They also allege that Claude can generate content similar to the original songs despite safeguards against copyright infringement.
Anthropic Accused of Training Claude on 274 Elvis Presley Songs
The lawsuit covers 274 songs associated with Elvis Presley, including popular tracks such as “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “All Shook Up,” “Don’t Be Cruel,” “A Little Less Conversation,” and “Return to Sender.”
The plaintiffs claim that Anthropic copied these songs and used them to train its Claude AI models without permission from the copyright owners. They also allege that Anthropic stored copies of the songs in an internal library to train future versions of its AI models.
The rights holders argue that the company used their copyrighted work without paying for it. The plaintiffs are seeking up to $150,000 in damages for each song allegedly used without permission. If awarded for all 274 songs, the total could reach $41.1 million.
ALSO READ: Microsoft Insider Warned AI Training Was ‘Largest Theft of Labor’ in History
Copyright Lawsuit Questions Claude’s Ability to Replicate Song Structures
The lawsuit also questions whether Claude can generate songs that closely resemble existing copyrighted music.
The plaintiffs claim that Anthropic continued to produce similar content even after adding safeguards in response to earlier copyright lawsuits. They allege that when users asked Claude to recreate songs for modern listeners, the chatbot generated versions that kept parts of the original songs.
According to the complaint, these versions included similar song structures, hooks, verses, choruses, and bridges, with only small changes to the lyrics.
The plaintiffs argue that this goes beyond taking inspiration from existing music and may amount to using copyrighted songs without permission.
These claims have not yet been proven in court. The case will determine whether Anthropic violated copyright law or whether its use of the material was legally allowed.
Anthropic Responds to Elvis Presley Copyright Lawsuit
Anthropic has denied the allegations and plans to defend itself in court, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In other copyright cases, the company has argued that using copyrighted material to train AI models may qualify as fair use under US law. However, whether this defence applies depends on the details of each case.
The lawsuit is part of a growing number of legal challenges against AI companies over the use of copyrighted material. Musicians, publishers and other creators are questioning whether AI companies should be allowed to use their work without permission or payment.
Anthropic Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Copyrighted Music
Anthropic is facing several legal challenges over the alleged use of copyrighted song lyrics. The lawsuits claim the company used these lyrics to train its Claude AI models without permission.
In 2023, Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO Music sued the company over the alleged use of copyrighted lyrics. Other music companies, including BMG Rights Management, Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music, have also filed copyright claims against Anthropic.
These cases focus on whether AI companies can use copyrighted songs and lyrics to train their models without getting permission or licenses from the rights holders.
The Elvis Presley lawsuit adds another case to these ongoing legal disputes. It focuses on songs linked to a single artist and the companies that hold the rights to his music.
The outcome could affect future copyright cases involving AI training and creative works. However, the claims against Anthropic remain unresolved, and the court has yet to decide whether the company violated copyright law.
