The people who control Elvis Presley's music have sued Anthropic, claiming its Claude models were trained on his lyrics and will still spit out versions of his songs on request. The complaint covers 274 songs and includes "Don't Be Cruel," "Return to Sender," and "A Little Less Conversation," which is also a fair summary of what the plaintiffs want from the AI industry.
274 Songs and Zero Licenses
According to NBC News, the lawsuit was filed Friday by Authentic Brands Group, the licensing outfit that controls Presley's intellectual property, along with other companies, trusts, and individuals who own pieces of his catalog. They allege Anthropic infringed the copyrights to 274 songs without a license or a dime of payment.
The hit list reads like a jukebox in a very good diner: "All Shook Up," "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Don't Be Cruel," "A Little Less Conversation," "Return to Sender." These are not obscure B-sides. This is the foundation of American popular music.
The complaint does not pull its punches on the value of the thing. It calls the catalog "some of the most groundbreaking, revolutionary, influential, and enduring musical compositions in human history." Subtle it ain't. But it's also not exactly wrong.
Two Kinds of Theft, Allegedly
The plaintiffs are making two separate accusations. First, they say the infringement happened throughout "the entire development" of Claude, meaning the lyrics were allegedly swept into training without permission. Second, they say it continues today, with users generating outputs that reproduce copyrighted lyrics or create unauthorized adaptations of the songs.
That second part matters. It's one thing to argue about what went into the machine. It's another to point at what comes out and say, look, there's the song.
The complaint also takes aim at the company's safety measures. "Even after the Defendant supposedly put up 'guardrails' after being sued, in one of its latest iterations, Claude continues to infringe," the plaintiffs state. Note the scare quotes around guardrails. The lawyers are rolling their eyes in legal-brief form.
The $1.5 Billion Elephant in the Room
The complaint accuses Anthropic of having "built its entire business model on infringing copyrights at an unfathomable scale," and points to alleged mass scraping of internet content and pirating of books to develop Claude.
That last part has precedent. Last year, Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement in a case brought by authors who said the company used pirated copies of their books to train its models. It was the largest settlement in the history of American copyright cases.
So when a company's own history includes the biggest copyright payout ever recorded, a new set of plaintiffs gets to wave that around like a receipt. Anthropic's response to this suit was short: "We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully." Which is what every defendant says, but at some point the pattern gets harder to wave off.
Everybody Is Suing Everybody Over Music
Elvis is joining a crowded room. In January, Universal Music, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO Music expanded their lawsuit against Anthropic over alleged infringement of song lyrics. BMG Rights Management, Sony Music Publishing, and Warner Chappell Music filed similar suits this year.
Anthropic and the AI music company Suno were also recently hit by independent publisher Round Hill, which is represented by Richard Busch, the same lead attorney now representing the Presley rights holders. Independent music company Reservoir Media has sued as well.
Count them up. Every major music publisher you can name, plus a bunch of independents, plus now the estate of the King. That's not a fringe grievance. That's an industry deciding it has had enough.
The Lawyer Who Keeps Showing Up
Busch put it plainly in a statement: "As we say in the lawsuit, the Elvis Plaintiffs are guardians of, and highly protective of, Elvis's song which are some of the most iconic of all time."
There's a strategy in having one attorney work both the Round Hill case and the Elvis case. He's building a body of work across multiple courtrooms, and anything he learns in one fight he carries into the next. If you're an AI company, that's a man you'd rather not see in your lobby twice.
Anthropic will argue it's defending a legitimate approach to building technology. The plaintiffs will argue it's a business model built on taking things that weren't offered. A court gets to decide which story holds up.
The Dingo Take
In 1955, Sam Phillips sold Elvis's contract to RCA for $40,000, and the music industry has spent the decades since learning exactly how much a catalog can be worth. Those publishers are not stupid, and they are not sentimental. They know what a song is worth, and they have lawyers who bill by the hour to prove it.
Here's the thing. The AI industry keeps acting shocked that people who own things want to be paid when those things are used. A $1.5 billion settlement with authors should have been a flashing sign. Instead we got more lawsuits, from more rights holders, filed by more expensive attorneys. Anthropic says it will defend this one fully, and maybe it will win some of these fights. But "we'll see you in court" is a weird business plan for a company that already wrote a nine-figure check once.
The real question is whether any of this changes how these companies operate, or whether it all becomes a cost of doing business, a rounding error paid out of a funding round. If settling is cheaper than licensing, the incentive is to keep taking. Elvis once sang that he couldn't help falling in love. The AI industry apparently can't help falling in lawsuits.
Comments