California attorney Mark Lemley dropped
Lemley said in a Monday post he still believes Meta to be “on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute,” but that he “cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.” Zuckerberg has generated controversy in recent days by ending diversity initiatives at the social media giant and ending fact-checking on Facebook posts while expounding the benefits of “masculine energy.”
With Lemley’s exit, attorneys from Cooley LLP and Cleary Gottleib Steen & Hamilton are defending Meta in a pivotal lawsuit from authors alleging that using their works to train AI constitutes copyright infringement. The consolidated case now includes plaintiff writers ranging from comedian Sarah Silverman, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, politician Mike Huckabee, and novelist Richard Kadrey.
Lemley had represented Meta as a partner for Lex Lumina LLP, a firm largely made up of other academics focusing on IP, First Amendment, antitrust, and adjacent fields. The influential scholar has authored 11 books and was the third-most cited scholar in the world from 2016 to 2020, according to his Stanford bio. He’s also argued dozens of appellate cases and participated in more than three dozen US Supreme Court cases as counsel or amicus, including the Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case in which the justices reined in what can constitute “transformation” in fair use analyses.
At issue in Meta’s case is whether creators of artificial intelligence infringe by having their models learn from copyrighted works, regardless of the output. Creators say AI companies unfairly profit from their work without having to pay for it, often relying on depositories of works on pirated sites. But those claiming AI is fair use argue that any one work out of millions has little impact on the model or its outputs, and that having to pay for every work used would stifle development of a paradigm-changing technology.
Lemley, the director of Stanford Law’s program in law, science and technology, formally withdrew Monday from the case in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, according to a docket entry.
Lemley also said he’d deactivated his account on Threads—Facebook’s Twitter-like microblog—and will refrain from clicking ads on Facebook to deny Meta commissions on his purchases. While he considered quitting Facebook, he said, “it doesn’t seem fair I should lose” the connections it facilitates for him “because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis.”
Meta and Lemley didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The CEO cited free speech concerns including pressure from President Joe Biden to censor Covid-related content—which he noted in an Aug. 26 letter to Congress. But critics said the recent changes open the door wider to hate speech in an already often-contentious forum.
Zuckerberg also told podcaster Joe Rogan in an interview that he wants to create a welcoming environment and for women to succeed, but “a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”
The case is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:23-cv-03417, notice of withdrawal 1/13/25.
