NewsCreative IndustriesDevelopingNew
Judge orders Meta to name who approved downloading pirated-book libraries for AI training
A federal magistrate judge in California has ordered Meta to identify everyone who decided to obtain shadow-library book datasets for its Llama models; it is a discovery order, and no court has found Meta liable for the downloads.
Evidence: 3 sources · 3 independent reports · 3 open questions
| When | Step | What it decides |
|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | Ruling on training | Judge Chhabria found training Llama on the books was fair use on that record |
| October 2026 | Discovery order | Meta must name who approved obtaining shadow libraries and who decided on seeding |
| Undecided | Downloading claims | Liability for BitTorrent downloading and seeding, willfulness, and any damages |
What happened
- Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion by Entrepreneur Media to compel answers from Meta; the order was reported on 20 October.
- Meta must identify each person who made, authorized, or approved decisions to obtain shadow-library datasets, including members of teams that decided collectively.
- The order also covers who decided whether or how to seed (share onward) files downloaded by BitTorrent from LibGen and Anna's Archive.
- The order applies in the consolidated cases that include Kadrey v. Meta, brought by authors, and Entrepreneur Media's separate suit.
Why it matters
An earlier ruling in the authors' case found Meta's training on the books was fair use, so the remaining fight is over how the books were obtained and shared, and the names Meta must disclose could bear on whether any infringement was willful.
What is confirmed and what is claimed
Confirmed
- Judge Hixson ordered Meta to identify the decision-makers behind acquiring shadow-library datasets (reported by TorrentFreak, Tech Times, and others). 12
- Meta had argued that early Llama data decisions were informal team decisions and that it could not name anyone who formally approved them (TorrentFreak, citing the filings). 1
- In June 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria ruled for Meta on fair use for training in Kadrey v. Meta, leaving claims about its BitTorrent downloading and distribution unresolved.
Claimed, not independently verified
- Plaintiffs allege, based on documents unsealed in 2025, that use of LibGen material was approved after escalation to Mark Zuckerberg. Meta has not been found liable, and these are allegations.
- Entrepreneur Media argues that Meta repeatedly torrented shadow libraries between 2022 and 2024 without anyone taking responsibility for the decision.
Magistrate judges handle pretrial evidence disputes, and this order is one of those: it tells Meta what it must disclose, not whether it broke the law. Its significance comes from where the litigation now stands.
Context
In June 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Meta's use of authors' books to train its Llama models was fair use on the record before him, while stressing that the ruling was narrow and turned on the plaintiffs' arguments. That ruling did not settle claims about how Meta obtained the books. Plaintiffs say Meta downloaded large shadow libraries, including LibGen and Anna's Archive, using BitTorrent, a file-sharing method that typically uploads pieces of files to other users while downloading.
Entrepreneur Media, a publisher with its own suit, asked the court to make Meta say who approved those downloads. Meta had answered that the early decisions were collaborative and that no individual formally approved them. The judge treated that as not answering the question and ordered Meta to name everyone involved, with approximate dates and the decision each person made.
The question of who knew matters because US copyright law allows higher statutory damages for willful infringement. Nothing in the order decides willfulness. For how these cases fit together, see our explainer on AI and copyright.
What to watch
Meta's sworn answers and any objection it files; whether the names include senior executives; and how the court treats the downloading and seeding claims at summary judgment or trial.
What we don’t know yet
- The exact date of the order; reports give 19 or 20 October.
- The deadline for Meta's answers, and whether Meta will ask the district judge to review the order.
- Whether the disclosures will support a willful-infringement claim, which could raise statutory damages.
Evidence and sources
- Independent reporting Judge Orders Meta to Name Employees Who Approved Torrenting Anna's Archive and LibGen
- Independent reporting Meta's Copyright Win Left Seeding Liability Intact; Judge Orders Executive Disclosures
- Independent reporting Judge Orders Meta To Name Employees Who Approved Torrenting Anna's Archive, Libgen