en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-library
2 corrections found
The District Court dismissed without prejudice the authors' claims
This overstates the court's ruling. The November 20, 2023 order left the authors' direct copyright-infringement claim intact and dismissed only the other theories, mostly with leave to amend.
Full reasoning
The cited court order does not say that all of the authors' claims were dismissed. Instead, Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that Meta moved to dismiss all claims except the claim "that the unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs’ books for purposes of training LLaMA constitutes copyright infringement," and that motion was granted only as to those other theories.
Specifically, the order states:
- Meta moved to dismiss all claims except the direct copyright claim.
- "The motion is granted" as to those remaining theories.
- "All the claims are dismissed with leave to amend except for the negligence claim which is dismissed with prejudice."
So the article's wording is inaccurate in two ways:
- it implies the court dismissed the authors' claims generally, when the direct copyright claim remained; and
- it says the dismissal was wholly "without prejudice," even though the negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice.
A more accurate description would be that the court dismissed several non-copyright theories, while leaving the direct copyright claim in place and allowing amendment of most dismissed claims.
2 sources
- Kadrey et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Filing 56 (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)
"Meta has moved to dismiss all claims except the one alleging that the unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs’ books for purposes of training LLaMA constitutes copyright infringement. The motion is granted." The same order adds: "All the claims are dismissed with leave to amend except for the negligence claim which is dismissed with prejudice."
- Kadrey et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Filing 598 (June 25, 2025 order)
The later order summarizes the procedural history: "Meta moved to dismiss the new claims, and its motion was granted as to the CDAFA claim but denied as to the DMCA claim... With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim that Meta infringed their copyrights by distributing their works ... this will remain a live issue in the case."
in February 2025 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
The amended complaint shown in the court filing was filed on January 21, 2025, not in February 2025.
Full reasoning
The filing date on the amended complaint itself is January 21, 2025. The court document header reads: Case 3:23-cv-03417-VC Document 407 Filed 01/21/25.
So while copies of the PDF were circulated in February 2025, the pleading was actually filed with the court in January, making the article's month incorrect.
1 source
- Kadrey v. Meta — Third Amended Consolidated Complaint
The docket header on the filing reads: "Case 3:23-cv-03417-VC Document 407 Filed 01/21/25 ... THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT."