Apple Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over AI Training on Authors' Works

A federal class action lawsuit alleging that Apple used copyrighted books without permission to train its AI models has been consolidated with two related cases in the Northern District of California [4].

The lead case, Hendrix, et al. v. Apple Inc., was filed September 5, 2025. Source [1] lists the venue as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, with case number 3:25-cv-07558. Source [4] records the docket as 4:25-cv-07558-YGR, the "4:" prefix indicating the Oakland Division, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The two sources disagree on the division; the discrepancy is noted here. On November 14, 2025, the court stipulated to consolidate the case with Martinez-Conde v. Apple and Alexander v. Apple, both filed in October 2025 before the same judge [4].

Allegations: Concealed Sources and Pirated Libraries

Plaintiffs Hendrix and Roberson, represented by Keller Rohrback LLP and Butterick Law P.C., claim they and the proposed class hold registered copyrights in published works used to train Apple Intelligence models, including the Foundation Intelligence Models and OpenELM language models, without consent [1].

The complaint alleges Apple concealed the sources of its training datasets to avoid legal scrutiny and continues to retain a private AI training-data library, including thousands of pirated books, to train future AI models without seeking consent or providing compensation [1]. Plaintiffs argue Apple's models "compete with and dilute the market for those very works — works without which Apple Intelligence would have far less commercial value" [1].

The suit seeks a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees for a nationwide class of copyright owners whose works were used for "Apple Intelligence Tasks" during the class period [1].

Apple's AI Models in Focus

The complaint names two model families: the Foundation Intelligence Models and OpenELM [1]. The filings do not detail the function or scope of these models beyond identifying them as Apple Intelligence models.

A Growing Wave of Author Lawsuits

The Apple cases join a crowded docket of legal proceedings targeting AI developers over training data. As of November 9, 2026, DataPacts tracked 70 proceedings across 12 jurisdictions, covering copyright, DMCA, contract, privacy, biometric, trademark and other claims related to training data [4].

Two district courts have found generative AI training to be fair use on the records before them: Bartz v. Anthropic (June 23, 2025) and Kadrey v. Meta (June 25, 2025). Both rulings were narrow. In Bartz, Judge William Alsup called training "exceedingly transformative" but refused to excuse the use of pirated library copies; the case then settled for a $1.5 billion fund covering 482,460 works [4]. In Kadrey, Judge Vince Chhabria granted Meta summary judgment because the thirteen author-plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one, emphasizing that the ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful [6].

By contrast, the Third Circuit held on September 29, 2026, that ROSS Intelligence's non-generative legal research AI made "minimally transformative, at best" use of Westlaw headnotes and was not fair use [4]. The appellate court stressed ROSS "was not a generative AI," leaving the generative question open.

Consolidation and Next Steps

The stipulated consolidation of the three Apple cases suggests the court will manage them jointly through discovery and pretrial motions. The docket does not show a published schedule as of the tracker date (2026-11-09).

What Remains Unknown

Whether Apple's training data includes pirated books, as alleged, has not been proven. Discovery, if the case proceeds, would test those claims.

The scope of "Apple Intelligence Tasks" referenced in the class definition is also undefined in the filings.

The consolidated cases are at the earliest stage: no motion to dismiss has been ruled on, no class certified, and no discovery completed. The first substantive ruling will likely come on any motion to dismiss Apple files.