Publishers Seek to Join Lawsuit Against Google Over AI Training Practices

In partnership with

Your competitors are already automating. Here's the data.

Retail and ecommerce teams using AI for customer service are resolving 40-60% more tickets without more staff, cutting cost-per-ticket by 30%+, and handling seasonal spikes 3x faster.

But here's what separates winners from everyone else: they started with the data, not the hype.

Gladly handles the predictable volume, FAQs, routing, returns, order status, while your team focuses on customers who need a human touch. The result? Better experiences. Lower costs. Real competitive advantage. Ready to see what's possible for your business?

See it in action

The legal battle over the use of copyrighted material in artificial intelligence training has entered a crucial new phase, as major publishing houses have moved to join an ongoing lawsuit against Google in the United States. On January 16, 2026, publishers Hachette Book Group and Cengage Group formally requested permission from a California federal court to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Google of unlawfully using copyrighted works to train its artificial intelligence systems.

The case, which is being closely watched by the global technology and publishing industries, centers on allegations that Google copied vast amounts of protected content without consent to develop its generative AI models, including its flagship Gemini large language model. If approved, the publishers’ participation could significantly expand the scope of the lawsuit and increase the potential financial and legal consequences for the tech giant.

Allegations of Unprecedented Copyright Infringement

In their proposed complaint, the publishers accused Google of engaging in “one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history.” According to the filing, Google allegedly copied content from books published by Hachette and textbooks produced by Cengage without permission or compensation, using these materials to train its AI systems.

The publishers cited at least ten specific examples of books and educational texts that were allegedly misused, including works by prominent authors such as Scott Turow and N.K. Jemisin. They argue that such practices not only violate copyright law but also undermine the economic foundation of the publishing industry, which depends on licensing and sales revenue to sustain authors, editors, and educators.

Why Publishers Want to Join the Case

The lawsuit currently involves groups of authors and visual artists who have accused Google of exploiting their creative works to power generative AI tools. However, publishers argue that their inclusion is essential because they are uniquely positioned to address key legal, factual, and evidentiary issues before the court.

Maria Pallante, CEO of the Association of American Publishers, emphasized this point in a public statement. “We believe our participation will bolster the case,” she said, adding that publishers can provide industry-specific insights into licensing norms, ownership rights, and the commercial value of copyrighted works. Their involvement could strengthen arguments against the unlicensed use of books and educational materials in AI training.

Google’s Silence and Legal Stakes

As of the publication of the news, Google had not issued an immediate response to requests for comment regarding the publishers’ motion. The absence of a public statement leaves open questions about how the company intends to defend its AI training practices, particularly as courts increasingly scrutinize whether such uses qualify as “fair use” under U.S. copyright law.

Legal experts note that allowing publishers to intervene could substantially raise the damages at stake. The publishers are seeking an unspecified amount of monetary compensation on behalf of themselves and a broader class of authors and publishers, potentially turning the lawsuit into one of the most financially consequential AI-related cases to date.

Part of a Wider AI Copyright Reckoning

The Google lawsuit is just one example of a growing wave of legal actions brought by artists, writers, musicians, and publishers against technology companies. These plaintiffs argue that AI developers have built powerful systems by extracting value from human-created works without authorization.

Recent cases highlight the scale of the issue. Last year, AI company Anthropic reportedly settled a lawsuit with a group of authors for $1.5 billion over claims that it used their works to train its chatbot, Claude. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major players, including OpenAI, Meta, and xAI, signaling that AI copyright disputes have entered a pivotal phase.

The Court’s Role and What Comes Next

The decision on whether to allow Hachette and Cengage to join the lawsuit now rests with U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee. Her ruling could shape the future direction of the case and influence how courts across the United States approach disputes over AI training and intellectual property.

If the publishers are permitted to intervene, the case could expand beyond individual creators to encompass the broader publishing ecosystem, raising fundamental questions about how AI companies source training data and whether existing copyright frameworks are adequate for the age of generative AI.

Implications for the Future of AI and Publishing

At its core, the lawsuit underscores a growing tension between innovation and intellectual property rights. While AI developers argue that access to large datasets is essential for technological progress, publishers and authors contend that such progress should not come at the cost of widespread copyright violations.

The outcome of this case could set a powerful precedent, influencing not only how AI models are trained in the future but also how creative industries negotiate licensing agreements with technology companies. As courts weigh the balance between fair use and infringement, the decisions made in cases like this one may define the rules governing artificial intelligence for years to come.