Bartz v. Anthropic: Updated Opt Out and Objection Dates, and a New Judge

Since our recent post regarding the Bartz v. Anthropic settlement (Back-of-the-Envelope Math on What Payouts We May See in the Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement), there have been a number of developments in the case worth noting.  

First, the plaintiffs and Anthropic jointly stipulated to an extension of the opt-out and objections deadline for the settlement. These have been approved by the court and are now changed to January 29, 2026 – this change is also reflected on the settlement website.  

Judge William Alsup has taken inactive status and his remaining cases have been randomly assigned. This case has been assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. (Of possible interest, Judge Martinez-Olguin participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project). 

In a December 23 memorandum, shortly before taking inactive status, Judge Alsup expressed his displeasure with the additional “interloper” firms potentially being compensated with class funds. “The three other firms — Cowan DeBaets, Edelson, and Oppenheim & Zebrak — propose receiving huge multipliers. At bottom, class counsel seeks as its fee award 15 percent of the $1.5 billion (so $225 million). The interlopers seek a third of that again, or 5 percent of the $1.5 billion (so $75 million).” (Memorandum at 7).  

Among other observations, Judge Alsup noted that some class members may be effectively receiving subsidized representation, given that funds would come from the entire class: “For example, if certain publishers in the class are represented by one of the three firms, then those publishers themselves would normally pay for such work. Allowing additional compensation from the class fund will give those publishers a premium compared to all other class members.” (Memorandum at 8).

“This memorandum should not be read as merely opposing a multiplier for these three firms. It should be read as opposing any award at all for these firms, including any award from any fees paid to class counsel. And, it should be read as questioning whether class counsel performed its work the right way (the $225 million part) if it let unapproved firms do so much.” (Memorandum at 9)

Judge Alsup also ordered the firms involved in the case to file a declaration related to any agreements to share fees in this action or other class actions. A flurry of declarations and responses were filed on December 30, 2025 and can be found in the docket. Judge Martinez-Olguin will be inheriting a series of knotty questions related to fees, with Judge Alsup’s clear antagonism to the amounts proposed.  This is as it should be – 75 million dollars is an enormous amount of money and it makes good sense to be skeptical on behalf of the class. 

Finally, John Carreyrou and several additional authors have opted out of the settlement and chosen to pursue a separate legal action against Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity. This new complaint is clearly taking pages out of the plaintiff’s playbook in the Bartz v. Anthropic litigation and reads a bit as a distillation of the most successful plaintiff strategies from the litigation we’ve seen thus far. It also sets out a rationale for bringing a separate action that may speak to some members of the Bartz class: “Plaintiffs elect not to bring this case as a class action because the Copyright Act entitles them to recover individualized statutory damages, determined by a jury, for each Defendant’s infringement of their work. Plaintiffs desire to retain full control of their case and avoid having their rights diluted by being swept into sprawling class-action settlements structured to resolve claims for pennies on the dollar.”  (Complaint at 3)

While we don’t know the scale of opt outs like this that would unravel the Bartz v. Anthropic settlement (the threshold opt out number is undisclosed), one can imagine that the attorneys for the Bartz class are hoping that this does not become a trend. For anyone extremely disappointed with the attorney fees issues emerging in Bartz and interested in taking on the risk and work of a separate legal action, this case may represent a blueprint. That acknowledged, the clock is ticking.