Textbook Authors' Group Tells Anthropic Settlement Judge the Claims Process Is Failing Authors

The Textbook and Academic Authors Association (TAA) has told the federal judge overseeing the $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement that the claims process has become "incredibly burdensome" for authors and "disproportionately prejudices" them against publishers. The four-page letter, signed by executive director Kim Pawlak and dated October 27, was filed in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC (N.D. Cal., No. 4:24-cv-05417) as an attachment to a cover letter from the association's counsel.

By its own count, the TAA has roughly 4,000 textbook and academic authors as members, and many of them belong to the settlement class. The letter states the nonprofit itself has no direct economic stake in how the case ends.

Publishers claiming most of the money

The letter responds to the joint stipulation the parties filed on October 23, which set out a timetable for the first payments. Pawlak writes that most of the claimants who have contacted the TAA are textbook authors, whose works do not get the 50-50 default split between author and publisher that the settlement applies to trade and academic books.

"Some have been outraged to learn of the percentage allocations being claimed by their publishers, which in many cases range from 85% to 95% of the settlement proceeds for the work," the letter says. Pawlak writes that most authors told her they had claimed 50% in cases where it was not clear they should receive 100%, such as out-of-print titles whose rights had reverted to them.

Authors whose claims are disputed have been told to "meet and confer" with their publishers. The letter describes this as a "daunting prospect": many authors have no contact details for their publisher or copies of contracts that are often decades old, and some were told the settlement administrator could not share publisher contact information. Even with a contract in hand, Pawlak writes, authors "have no idea how to develop arguments to advocate for a split," and hiring a lawyer "could cost more than the author is likely to get even if they prevail."

Notices, deadlines and a glitchy portal

The letter lists problems with notice. It says many authors did not receive the administrator's first email in early September, that the email stated a 30-day deadline which class counsel later told the TAA was an error, and that the 60-day period was never clearly communicated. It also says the claims portal cannot save work in progress, returns errors on uploads and submissions, and does not show whether co-claimants have logged in.

Pawlak writes that the administrator "has been helpful at times" but that help is "very hit or miss." She says neither the emails nor the portal make clear that claimants must try to resolve disputes and must "explicitly ask" for their claim to go to the Special Master, and that no process has yet been defined for how the Special Master will decide disputes.

What the TAA is asking for

The association asks the court to ensure, at a minimum, that authors are not defaulted for technical non-compliance with a procedure that, in the letter's words, "has been designed and re-designed, and has yet to be designed," and that they receive clear notice of how to send claims to the Special Master. It also asks the court to weigh the imbalance between many authors with small claims and no shared counsel and a few publishers with large claims and legal resources. "It is not fair, and it is getting more unfair by piling up procedure after procedure—on the fly," Pawlak writes.

She offers to testify and says the process "should not come at the cost of fairness to educational authors—roughly 25% of the class." The TAA has posted the letter and its exhibits, including emails from authors, on its settlement guidance page.

Sources

• TAA letter to the court, October 27, 2026 (ECF No. 695-1): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
• Counsel's cover letter (ECF No. 695): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
• Textbook and Academic Authors Association: Anthropic Settlement guidance