Reddit says Anthropic used its community to train AI without permission, files lawsuit
Social media platform Reddit has launched legal proceedings against artificial intelligence company Anthropic, accusing the firm of unlawfully scraping user-generated content to train its AI assistant, Claude.
Filed on Wednesday in the California Superior Court in San Francisco, the lawsuit alleges that Anthropic used automated tools to extract Reddit users' comments without permission, despite being explicitly told not to do so. According to Reddit, this content was then used to train the Claude chatbot, without user consent or proper licensing. You may be interested in
'AI companies should not be allowed to scrape information and content from people without clear limitations on how they can use that data,' said Reddit's Chief Legal Officer, Ben Lee. He emphasised the platform's commitment to safeguarding its community, which generates vast volumes of public discourse each day.
Reddit, which went public last year, has previously struck licensing deals with AI developers such as OpenAI and Google. These arrangements, the company says, allow for transparent and lawful use of data while enabling user protections like content deletion and spam prevention.
'These partnerships allow us to enforce meaningful safeguards for our users,' Lee added, underlining the contrast between authorised data access and Anthropic's alleged misconduct.
Anthropic, founded by ex-OpenAI executives in 2021 and now backed heavily by Amazon, denies the allegations. 'We disagree with Reddit's claims and will defend ourselves vigorously,' the company said in a brief statement.
The legal complaint takes a different route from other recent cases involving AI firms. Rather than alleging copyright infringement, as seen in lawsuits from music publishers targeting Claude for replicating song lyrics, Reddit's filing focuses on breach of contract and unfair competition. Specifically, it accuses Anthropic of violating Reddit's terms of service by scraping data without a proper license.
The lawsuit cites a 2021 research paper co-authored by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in which Reddit's subforums were explicitly mentioned as high-quality sources for training AI systems. Forums covering topics like gardening, history, and personal advice were listed as especially valuable for modelling human language patterns.
Anthropic has previously claimed, including in a 2023 letter to the US Copyright Office, that its methods of training Claude constitute lawful use, describing them as a form of statistical analysis rather than reproduction of content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Is ChatGPT fueling breakups? How AI relationship advice may be sparking delusions and destroying real connections
ChatGPT is becoming an unexpected relationship counselor, but its advice might be more harmful than helpful. From reinforcing delusions to fueling unnecessary breakups, users are discovering that AI can validate one-sided narratives without context. Experts warn that while the chatbot sounds authoritative, it often lacks emotional nuance—making it a risky source for navigating romantic complexities. As therapy costs rise, many turn to ChatGPT for relationship advice. However, the AI's tendency to overly validate users may be feeding narcissism and emotional bias, instead of promoting growth or resolution. With cases of breakups and misunderstandings linked to its responses, mental health professionals caution against using AI as a replacement for human empathy and insight. (Representational image: iStock) Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Rise of AI as a Relationship Therapist The Ultimate 'Yes Man'? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Could AI Advice Be Sparking Breakups? The Danger of Echo Chambers in Digital Love Proceed With Caution: AI Isn't a Substitute for Human Connection In recent months, a growing number of people have turned to ChatGPT for relationship advice, hoping that artificial intelligence can offer objective guidance. However, the surprising truth is that this digital counselor might be doing more harm than good—feeding delusions, escalating arguments, and even contributing to unnecessary to a report from Vice, one man recently shared his discomfort about his girlfriend's reliance on ChatGPT for therapy and advice. 'She brings up things ChatGPT told her in arguments,' he said, revealing how the AI's input became a wedge in their relationship. As therapy becomes increasingly expensive and inaccessible, many individuals are seeking quick fixes from AI, believing it offers unbiased can a chatbot really replace human empathy and nuanced understanding in matters of the heart?While some users treat ChatGPT as a neutral sounding board, others have noticed a worrying pattern: the AI often validates their feelings and perspectives excessively, without challenging harmful biases or encouraging self-reflection. On Reddit, a user described an 'AI-influencer' whose delusions appeared reinforced by ChatGPT's responses, raising concerns about the AI's role in exacerbating mental health echoes a deeper problem—when ChatGPT constantly sides with one person in a conflict, it risks amplifying narcissism and fostering toxic relationship dynamics, rather than promoting healthy important to clarify that AI itself doesn't cause breakups—people make those choices. However, relying heavily on ChatGPT's one-sided advice can skew perceptions, pushing users toward premature or misguided decisions. Unlike a therapist or trusted friend who considers complex emotions and multiple viewpoints, ChatGPT operates on patterns and data without true emotional those with conditions like Relationship OCD, this can be especially damaging. One Reddit user shared that ChatGPT bluntly advised a breakup without understanding the deeper psychological context. Mental health professionals caution that while AI answers may sound confident, they often lack reliability, occasionally 'hallucinating' facts or providing misleading seeking advice from AI often present only their own side, leading to a feedback loop of self-validation. One Reddit user lamented that ChatGPT 'consigns my BS regularly instead of offering needed insight and confrontation,' highlighting how the AI can fail to promote personal growth or a world already rife with selfishness and fragile egos in dating, AI's unchecked reinforcement of personal biases threatens to deepen misunderstandings rather than heal takeaway? Use ChatGPT for light-hearted banter or brainstorming, but be wary of entrusting your relationship decisions to a digital assistant. Human relationships are complex, emotionally nuanced, and deeply personal—qualities a machine simply cannot you do turn to AI for advice, remember to take its input with a grain of salt and seek balanced perspectives from people who truly understand you. After all, matters of the heart deserve more than algorithmic answers.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Govt proposes mandatory online payment system for copyright licence fees
New Delhi: The Centre has proposed a key change to the copyright regime by making it mandatory for owners and licensors of literary works, musical works and sound recordings to set up an online mechanism for collection of licence fees, as per a notification issued by the commerce ministry on Thursday. The move is aimed at streamlining payments and improving transparency in the way royalties are collected and distributed, especially amid the growing reliance on digital modes of content consumption and public performance. Also read: Reddit says Anthropic used its community to train AI without permission, files lawsuit A notification in this regard has been issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 5 June, seeking public comments on the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025 within 30 days, possibly by 4 July. The draft rules insert a new provision—Rule 83(A)—in the Copyright Rules, 2013, requiring that 'all payments of such licence fee shall be processed exclusively through said online system," and explicitly barring any alternative mode of payment. Stakeholders have been given 30 days to submit their objections or suggestions. Any feedback received within this period will be duly examined by the central government before finalizing the rules, the ministry said. The proposal, once finalized, could change the way licensing entities, including copyright societies and aggregators, operate, potentially reducing disputes over manual transactions and non-transparent fee collection. Legal experts said that the amendment reflects a broader policy shift towards digital governance and accountability in the IP rights ecosystem. Also read: Eminem sues Facebook-owner Meta for $109 million over alleged copyright infringement 'The government appears to be moving towards a fully auditable, traceable digital trail for royalty payments, which will benefit both creators and licensees by reducing ambiguity," said Manish K Shubhay, Partner at The Precept-Law Offices. However, questions remain over the operational aspects—whether existing copyright societies will be required to revamp their systems or if the change targets individual right holders. India has seen a steady rise in content licensing for OTT platforms, radio broadcasters, live events, and public performances, making timely and transparent payments a long-standing demand of creators and music labels. On the proposed draft rule, a senior commerce ministry official said that the amendment was designed to 'facilitate efficient royalty flows and curb evasive practices." However, the draft rule does not currently specify the format or standards of the online mechanism, leaving room for further clarifications during the consultation process. 'IPRS welcomes this progressive move aimed at enhancing transparency and streamlining the copyright licensing process. We are pleased to share that IPRS implemented a fully online and digital licensing system nearly five years ago. Today, over 99.5% of our licensing fees for royalties are collected digitally, ensuring ease, accessibility, and transparency for users," said Rakesh Nigam, chief executive officer (CEO) of IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society), a collective rights management organization. Also read: Rahul Matthan: Shield innovation in content creation from intimidation "Our licensing tariffs are publicly available on the IPRS website, enabling users to choose the license best suited to their needs with complete clarity. We also maintain a strict no-cash policy, reinforcing our commitment to transparency and efficiency. This proposed mandate further aligns with the steps IPRS has already taken and will help standardize best practices across the sector for the benefit of creators, users, and the broader copyright ecosystem."
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
OpenAI to appeal New York Times suit demand asking to not delete any user chats
HighlightsOpenAI is appealing a court order requiring it to preserve ChatGPT output data indefinitely, citing conflicts with user privacy commitments. OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman stated that the demand from The New York Times sets a bad precedent and compromises user privacy. The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for allegedly using its articles without permission to train the language model behind ChatGPT. OpenAI is appealing an order in a copyright case brought by the New York Times that requires it to preserve ChatGPT output data indefinitely, arguing that the order conflicts with privacy commitments it has made with users. Last month, a court said OpenAI had to preserve and segregate all output log data after the Times asked for the data to be preserved. "We will fight any demand that compromises our users' privacy; this is a core principle," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a post on X on Thursday. "We think this (The Times demand) was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent." U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein was asked to vacate the May data preservation order on June 3, a court filing showed. The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours. The newspaper sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, accusing them of using millions of its articles without permission to train the large language model behind its popular chatbot. Stein said in an April court opinion that the Times had made a case that OpenAI and Microsoft were responsible for inducing users to infringe its copyrights. The opinion explained an earlier order that rejected parts of an OpenAI and Microsoft motion to dismiss, saying that the Times' "numerous" and "widely publicised" examples of ChatGPT producing material from its articles justified allowing the claims to continue.
