Meta Platforms, Inc. (META.O) has been denied its attempt to block U.S. authors from questioning CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lawsuit alleging the company misappropriated copyrighted works to train its artificial intelligence systems.
On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson ruled that Zuckerberg’s deposition is warranted, citing evidence suggesting his direct involvement in decisions regarding Meta’s AI training. This decision allows authors, including comedian Sarah Silverman, to proceed with their claims that Meta infringed upon their copyrights by utilizing their books for AI language model training.
The lawsuit, filed last year, is part of a broader legal landscape where authors and creators have challenged major tech companies over the unauthorized use of their works. Alongside the Meta case, these authors are also pursuing a similar action against OpenAI, which is backed by Microsoft.
In a related development, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, overseeing the Meta case, approved the addition of renowned litigator David Boies and his team from Boies Schiller Flexner to represent the authors. This move follows Judge Chhabria’s criticism of the authors’ lead attorney, Joseph Saveri, regarding the management of the case. He cautioned that proceeding without a restructured legal team could be detrimental.
Saveri expressed optimism about the new partnership, stating, “I look forward to combining our collective expertise to successfully advance this important case.”
Meta’s representatives did not provide immediate comments on the court’s rulings. The company, along with other major tech firms, has faced a wave of lawsuits from copyright holders, including writers, visual artists, and music publishers, who allege that their works have been used without authorization to train generative AI systems. Tech companies assert that their AI training practices are protected under the fair use doctrine, arguing that these lawsuits could stifle innovation in the rapidly evolving AI sector.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome of this case could set significant precedents for the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence development.