Elvis Presley Estate Sues Anthropic Over 274 Songs, Seeks $41 Million

The rightsholders to Elvis Presley's music sued AI company Anthropic on Friday, claiming it trained its models on 274 of the King's songs without permission. The suit seeks $150,000 per infringed track — roughly $41 million.

Billboard first reported the filing. The plaintiff, Authentic Brands Group (ABG), is the licensing group that controls Presley's music and likeness. The case, filed as ABE EPE LLC v. Anthropic, names songs ranging from major hits — "All Shook Up," "Can’t Help Falling in Love," "Don’t Be Cruel" — to lesser-known tracks.

Why this lawsuit is different

AI companies have faced copyright suits before, from record labels like Universal and Warner Bros. and from the RIAA (the US recorded-music industry trade body). But this is one of the first major cases where an artist's estate itself has taken an AI company to court. That distinction matters: it signals that rightsholders beyond the big labels now see litigation as a viable tool against AI training practices.

Lead attorney Richard Busch wrote: "The Elvis Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce these exclusive rights against the defendant that has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before." He added: "The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs."

Busch is no stranger to music copyright fights. He previously worked on the Marvin Gaye estate's groundbreaking case against Robin Thicke and Pharrell over "Blurred Lines." Like that case, the new suit argues Anthropic is using Presley's songs to create "unlicensed derivative works" with its AI models.

What the complaint says Claude actually did

The lawsuit doesn't stop at the training itself. It claims Claude — Anthropic's chatbot — produces infringing output of copyrighted material across "virtually every song from every catalog available on the internet."

The complaint's sharpest evidence is Claude's own admission. After Anthropic supposedly installed "guardrails" following earlier lawsuits, the suit says, a recent test asked Claude to recreate specific songs "for a modern audience." Claude complied, then reportedly said: "These renders keep landing very close to the originals: same structure, same hooks reused with light rewording, and full sets of verses/choruses/bridges. That’s edging past ‘inspired by’ into reproducing the copyrighted song, even when the words are swapped out."

In plain terms, the argument runs: even when an AI model rewrites the lyrics, reproducing the structure, hooks and sections of a song can still cross into reproduction of the copyrighted work. That's the mechanism the plaintiffs want a court to recognize.

What does this change for AI companies?

If the estate prevails, it could widen the pool of plaintiffs going after AI developers — estates and publishers, not just labels. The $150,000-per-track figure, multiplied across catalogs, would also give rightsholders a template for calculating damages at scale. And Claude's quoted self-assessment hands future plaintiffs a ready-made exhibit suggesting guardrails don't fully stop infringing output.

For now, the case joins a growing docket of AI copyright litigation, with Anthropic facing a claim that its flagship product kept reproducing protected songs even after it promised to stop.