Meta attempts to scapegoat employees who downloaded torrents in order to protect executives.

Meta Description: Meta must name executives who authorized pirating books from Anna's Archive and LibGen in AI training copyright lawsuits, court discovery order says.

Tags: Meta, AI training, copyright lawsuits, Anna's Archive, LibGen

Featured Image: Abstract digital books dissolving into data streams, dark blue and orange tones, no people, no logos, no text.

For weeks in the copyright lawsuits over AI training, Meta has pointed to staff members who downloaded torrents, not to senior leaders. A discovery order changes that framing. TorrentFreak reported that the company must identify executives who authorized decisions to pirate books from shadow libraries such as Anna's Archive and LibGen. The order affects a class action raised by book authors, including Richard Kadrey and Sarah Silverman, and a lawsuit from publisher Entrepreneur Media. It matters because the reported order pushes the dispute beyond individual downloads and toward company-level authority.

Background: Staff Downloads and Company Responsibility

The lawsuits focus on the materials Meta used to build AI datasets. In that context, torrents are a file-sharing method that can move large collections of digital files, and shadow libraries are online repositories that may contain copyrighted books. Meta's initial position in court was narrow. The company said the relevant acts were downloads performed by some staff members. For weeks, it blamed staff for downloading torrents, framing the issue as a series of technical choices rather than a supervised company effort.

Development: Court Orders Disclosure of Decision Makers

Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixon largely agreed that Meta must clearly identify key decision-makers. The discovery order impacts both the author class action and the Entrepreneur Media case. Following testimony from Meta staff who downloaded torrents, the order could expose a wider range of supervisors, managers, and executives whom staffers said greenlit the piracy.

This shift is procedural but consequential. Discovery is the court process through which parties exchange evidence. By requiring names, the order asks Meta to show who authorized the use of shadow library materials during its early dataset work.

Latest: Meta's Informal Approach Under Scrutiny

Meta had hoped to avoid detailing the chain of command, particularly for leadership involved in early AI training. According to a Meta court filing, its initial efforts to compile massive AI datasets were managed through an "informal approach" where supposedly nobody with authority made any decisions. Instead, Meta insisted that a "decision" was "made only in the sense" that some staffers "technically" downloaded torrents.

The court order puts that explanation under strain. If staff testimony links downloads to approvals from supervisors or executives, Meta may need to map the path from individual actions to company-level direction. The central question is no longer only whether downloads happened, but who authorized them and how.

What Comes Next: Identifying the Chain of Command

The next stage will focus on identifying those key decision-makers through the discovery process. The cases remain at a discovery stage, where courts sort out who controlled the dataset work before larger liability questions are fully tried. For readers, the key point is that Meta's defense has moved from staff conduct to executive accountability. The reported order requires the company to clarify whether early AI training efforts were directed by people with authority, not merely carried out by employees who downloaded files.