Google Gemini lawsuit: publishers file suit regarding AI training.

      A coalition of significant book publishers and author Scott Turow has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company utilized millions of copyrighted books to train its Gemini AI without obtaining permission. The legal action, referred to as the Google Gemini lawsuit, characterizes this situation as “one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history.”

      The lawsuit was submitted on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs include Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E., and they are pursuing class-action designation.

      The publishers contend that Google copied their books and journal articles to enhance the Gemini generative AI system without consent or compensation. The Guardian was the first to report on these allegations, which are detailed in the complaint.

      Details of the lawsuit

      The case focuses on the works that Google accessed through limited services like Google Books, Google Play Books, and Google Scholar. The plaintiffs argue that these services allowed Google to display searchable snippets or sell ebooks but did not grant permission to copy the materials for training a commercial AI.

      According to the complaint, “Google illegally copied works from all these scope-limited programs for AI training, knowing it lacked authorization to do so.” The suit also claims that Google utilized web scrapes from “known pirate sources” and material behind paywalls.

      The lawsuit includes four charges—three of which pertain to the Copyright Act, while the fourth, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, accuses Google of removing or altering copyright information to conceal the fact that Gemini was trained on those works.

      The plaintiffs reference an internal Google document that reportedly indicated that training on copyrighted books could be “highly problematic” and might expose the company to potential fines ranging from “$10B to $100B.”

      The identified harm to publishers

      The publishers assert that Gemini now competes directly with the works it was trained on, claiming its outputs can range from nearly verbatim copies to substitute textbook chapters and imitation novels.

      One example mentioned in the complaint states that Gemini can generate a 100-page murder mystery in approximately 20 minutes for just 39 cents, with the assertion that “No publisher or author can compete with that."

      The lawsuit specifies particular titles that Google allegedly used, including NK Jemisin’s The Fifth Season and Lemony Snicket’s Who Could That Be at This Hour? It also notes that Alphabet announced its first $100 billion revenue quarter in October 2025, attributing part of this success to Google’s AI initiatives.

      The plaintiffs are pursuing statutory damages and a permanent injunction. They also seek an order mandating Google to eliminate any unauthorized copies used in the AI training. Google has not provided any comments regarding the lawsuit.

      A broader legal battle

      This case is part of an increasing number of copyright lawsuits against AI companies. Authors and publishers have also initiated legal actions against OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta concerning training data, which includes a significant case involving news organizations and another involving film studios. Earlier this year, the same publishers had also sued Meta.

      Two judgments in California last year favored AI companies concerning fair use, though both judges remarked that future cases could yield different outcomes. Separately, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to authors due to pirated copies, marking the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history.

      Some rights holders have opted for licensing agreements with AI companies rather than pursuing legal action. Although Google, which develops the Gemini models, currently licenses some content for training, the plaintiffs allege that it chose unauthorized sources. A New York judge is now set to review the claims.