Major Publishers Seek to Intervene in Lawsuit Alleging Google Used Copyrighted Works to Train AI

Two major international publishers have moved to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit against Google, accusing the technology giant of unlawfully using copyrighted books and educational materials to train its artificial intelligence systems.

On January 15, publishers Hachette Book Group and Cengage Group asked a federal court in California for permission to formally join ongoing legal proceedings that challenge Google’s use of copyrighted content in AI development. The case represents the latest escalation in a growing global legal and ethical dispute over how artificial intelligence models are trained.

Allegations of Large-Scale Copyright Infringement

In their proposed complaint, the publishers allege that Google “engaged in one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history” by copying content from Hachette books and Cengage textbooks without permission. According to the filing, the works were allegedly used to build and enhance Google’s AI capabilities, including large language models.

The publishers argue that such use goes far beyond fair use provisions and amounts to systematic exploitation of copyrighted intellectual property for commercial gain. They contend that allowing such practices to continue would undermine the economic foundations of publishing, authorship, and educational content creation.

A Growing Legal Front in the AI Debate

The case forms part of a broader wave of lawsuits brought by authors, artists, publishers, and media organisations against major technology companies over the training of generative AI systems. At the heart of these disputes is a central unresolved question: can copyrighted works be used to train AI models without consent, licensing, or compensation?

While technology companies have generally argued that training AI models on large datasets constitutes lawful fair use or transformative use, rights holders counter that AI systems directly benefit from the expressive value of protected works and often reproduce similar content, styles, or knowledge structures.

Legal experts note that U.S. courts have yet to issue definitive rulings that clearly settle this issue, leaving the sector in a state of legal uncertainty.

Why Publisher Intervention Matters

Hachette and Cengage’s request to intervene is significant. Both companies represent vast catalogues of copyrighted material, including fiction, non-fiction, academic texts, and educational resources used globally. Their participation strengthens the case by introducing institutional plaintiffs with extensive documentation of ownership, licensing practices, and economic impact.

Cengage, in particular, is a major provider of digital learning materials, raising questions about whether AI systems trained on textbooks could eventually compete with or substitute paid educational content.

The publishers argue that allowing AI developers to freely ingest copyrighted works without consent creates an uneven playing field, where technology companies profit while creators and publishers bear the cost.

Media, Education, and Journalism

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences well beyond publishing. Media organisations, journalists, musicians, and educators are closely watching how courts address the balance between innovation and intellectual property rights.

If courts rule in favour of publishers, AI developers may be required to license training data, disclose sources, or compensate rights holders, potentially reshaping how AI systems are built and monetised. Conversely, a ruling favouring Google could accelerate AI development while weakening traditional copyright protections.

For news media in particular, the case raises concerns about whether AI systems trained on journalistic content could erode original reporting by reproducing summaries or insights without attribution or compensation.

What is Next

The California federal court must now decide whether to grant Hachette and Cengage permission to intervene in the class action. If approved, the lawsuit is likely to expand in scope and intensity, potentially drawing in further publishers or content owners.

As governments and regulators worldwide consider new frameworks for AI governance, the case underscores a central tension of the digital age: how to foster technological innovation without hollowing out the creative and informational industries that supply its raw material.

Aaron Joyce, Newswire, L.T.T Media; Newsdesk; January 16, 2026