Elvis Presley's rights holders are seeking up to $41.1 million in statutory damages from Anthropic, alleging the AI company used copyrighted lyrics from 274 songs to train its Claude models without permission. The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also accuses Claude of generating unauthorized versions of copyrighted songs.

The plaintiffs are seeking the statutory maximum of $150,000 for each work allegedly infringed willfully. They also bring separate claims involving copyright-management information and circumvention of copyright protections, putting their additional demands at approximately $7.5 million. The combined potential claim is about $48.6 million, although neither figure represents an award. The allegations have not been proven in court.

What the Elvis Lawsuit Actually Alleges The plaintiffs include ABG EPE IP LLC, associated with Authentic Brands Group, alongside other companies, trusts and individuals that own or control rights to the 274 musical compositions identified in the complaint.

The works include popular Presley songs such as "All Shook Up," "Can't Help Falling in Love" and "Don't Be Cruel." The plaintiffs allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to develop Claude without obtaining licences and that the chatbot can generate infringing material in response to user prompts.

The plaintiffs also allege that Anthropic removed copyright-management information and circumvented protections. Their complaint states: "Defendant has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before." Anthropic has rejected the allegations. A company spokesperson said: "We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully." The plaintiffs are also seeking a permanent injunction and an order requiring Anthropic to destroy unauthorized copies of the works. Whether the company infringed the copyrights, and whether any infringement was willful, remain unresolved.

'Virtually Every Song' Infringed One of the complaint's broadest allegations is that Claude has produced infringing output involving "virtually every song" from catalogues available online, including the 274 Presley compositions at issue.

That is the plaintiffs' characterization, not a judicial finding that Claude copied every song. They allege that infringement occurred during the development of Claude and continues when users prompt the models to reproduce lyrics or create unauthorized adaptations. They also argue that safeguards introduced following earlier copyright litigation have not prevented Claude from generating infringing material.

An early analysis of the complaint questioned whether the examples sufficiently demonstrated infringing outputs for the specific Presley songs. It also raised concerns about the reliance on Claude's own descriptions of what it had generated. That is an interpretation of the evidence presented, not a court ruling.

The underlying prompts, complete model outputs and versions involved could become important evidence as the case progresses. The court will need to assess the specific allegations and evidence rather than treating the complaint's broadest claims as established facts.

Another Front in Anthropic's Music The Presley lawsuit adds to a growing series of legal challenges over Anthropic's use of copyrighted music. Lead attorney Richard Busch of Adams & Reese, known for representing the Marvin Gaye estate in the "Blurred Lines" litigation, has also represented other music rights holders in copyright actions against AI companies.

Round Hill Music filed a lawsuit against Anthropic on Aug. 17. Reservoir Media filed its own action on Oct. 21, seeking statutory damages it puts at approximately $127.95 million. Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell and other publishers filed a separate lawsuit in August.

The cases follow earlier litigation from music publishers. Universal Music Publishing, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023 over alleged misuse of lyrics from hundreds of songs. In Jan. 2026, the publishers filed another lawsuit alleging that Anthropic had obtained copyrighted music through piracy and used it to train Claude. They said the case could involve more than 20,000 works and potentially exceed $3 billion in damages.

These cases raise questions about both the material used to train AI models and the content those models subsequently generate. The Presley lawsuit brings those questions to a catalogue associated with one of the most recognizable artists in popular music.

The Fair-Use Question Remains Unsettled The central legal question extends beyond Presley: can an AI developer train models on copyrighted lyrics without permission, and when does generated output cross the line into infringement?

In a separate case brought by music publishers, U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee denied a preliminary injunction against Anthropic in March 2025. The judge did not resolve the underlying infringement claims, leaving those questions for later proceedings. The ruling was not a finding that Anthropic's use of copyrighted lyrics was lawful.

Anthropic has argued in related litigation that training on copyrighted material can be transformative. Music publishers counter that unauthorized training and the generation of copyrighted lyrics can undermine markets for licensed works. The competing arguments remain subject to the evidence and legal questions in each case.

A separate lawsuit brought by authors illustrates why the source of training material matters. In 2025, a judge ruled that training on lawfully obtained books qualified as fair use in the circumstances before the court, while acquiring books from pirate websites was unlawful. Anthropic later agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement in that litigation. The ruling concerned books and does not automatically determine the outcome of the music cases.