A coalition of publishers and authors has filed a class action lawsuit against Google, alleging the company used their copyrighted works to train its Gemini AI platform. Plaintiffs named in the complaint include Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, author Scott Turow and S.C.R.I.B.E.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Google intentionally removed or altered copyright metadata on those works to "conceal… that its Gemini Models were trained on stolen materials."
Context and broader litigation
This suit is one of many filed by publishers, authors and other copyright holders against AI companies such as Google, Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic. While several cases are still pending, two early rulings in California have sided with AI companies, finding that using copyrighted works for AI training can constitute "fair use" under U.S. copyright law — a legal framework that has not been substantially updated since before the internet era.
In a separate matter, Anthropic was ordered to pay $1.5 billion for using pirated works in training, the largest payout in U.S. copyright history. Approximately half a million writers were eligible for minimum payments of $3,000; many authors, however, declined the settlement in order to pursue further legal action over AI training practices.
Allegations concerning Google Books and Google Play
The complaint emphasizes that publishers and authors have for years provided copyrighted books to Google for a limited purpose: making books searchable via Google Books. Those search results do not permit full‑text access, but show short snippets and bibliographic information. The plaintiffs claim Google nonetheless used copies of books from Google Books and titles uploaded to the Google Play store to train Gemini, without obtaining permission.
"Google illegally copied works from all these scope‑limited programs for AI training, knowing it lacked authorization to do so," the lawsuit states.
Plaintiffs also point to an internal Google document that reportedly warned using copyrighted books for AI training could be "highly problematic for Google" and could expose the company to "$10Bs–$100Bs in potential fines."
Venue and possible implications
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, giving a different federal judge the opportunity to assess the legal and factual claims. While California rulings that found some training uses to be fair use may influence outcomes, they do not automatically dictate how other courts will rule, and the issues remain legally complex.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Summary
The plaintiffs contend that Google used books provided for narrow, search‑related programs to train Gemini without permission and took steps to obscure that use. The case adds to a growing body of litigation testing how existing copyright law applies to modern AI training practices.
