Meta blushes in face of $350M lawsuit over alleged AI training via adult video piracy

Strike 3 Holdings has filed a federal lawsuit against Meta, alleging the tech giant illegally torrented over 2,300 copyrighted adult videos to train its AI models since 2018. The company claims Meta specifically sought out pornographic content to capture unique visual angles and extended scenes that are rare in mainstream media, helping advance what Mark Zuckerberg calls AI “superintelligence.”

What you should know: Strike 3’s lawsuit reveals the alleged scope of Meta’s content piracy extends far beyond adult videos to mainstream entertainment.

• The company alleges Meta used BitTorrent—a file-sharing protocol often used for piracy—to download and distribute 2,396 of Strike 3’s copyright-protected videos using 47 distinct Meta-affiliated IP addresses.
• Exhibits in the case show Meta allegedly pirated content from sources including Yellowstone, Modern Family, The Bachelor, and South Park, alongside adult content with potentially concerning titles like “ExploitedTeens” and “Anal Teens.”
• Strike 3 is demanding $350 million based on statutory infringement penalties, with attorney Christian Waugh calling this potentially “the case of the century because of the sheer scope of infringement.”

Why this matters: The lawsuit highlights how AI companies may be systematically violating copyright law to gain competitive advantages in model training.

• Meta allegedly used Strike 3’s content “as currency to support its downloading of a vast array of other content necessary to train its AI models,” according to the complaint.
• The case exposes potential risks of using adult content as training data, with legal experts warning it could create “a public relations disaster waiting to happen” if AI models inadvertently generate inappropriate content for minors.

Meta’s AI ambitions: The alleged piracy directly supports Meta’s goal of achieving artificial general intelligence and “superintelligence.”

• Meta’s V-JEPA 2 “world model,” released in June, was trained on one million hours of “internet video”—a term the lawsuit notes is deliberately vague.
• Zuckerberg has publicly stated Meta plans to put “the power of superintelligence into people’s hands to direct it towards what they value in their own lives.”

What they’re saying: Legal experts see potential for Strike 3 to succeed where other copyright cases have failed.

• “They have an interest in getting our content because it can give them a competitive advantage for the quality, fluidity, and humanity of the AI,” alleges Christian Waugh, Strike 3’s attorney.
• Matthew Sag, an Emory University law professor, warns: “Imagine a middle school student asks a Meta AI model for a video about pizza delivery, and before you know it, it’s porn.”
• Meta spokesperson Christopher Sgro told WIRED: “We’re reviewing the complaint, but we don’t believe Strike’s claims are accurate.”

Legal precedent: Previous AI copyright cases have produced mixed results, but this lawsuit may have stronger legal footing.

• In June, US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled Meta did not violate the law when training AI models on 13 authors’ books, but explicitly stated this doesn’t mean Meta’s use of copyrighted materials is lawful.
• The judge noted the previous plaintiffs “made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one,” potentially leaving room for Strike 3’s case.
• Using pirated material as training data was reportedly “an active choice made by Meta executives and approved by Zuckerberg directly.”

The broader context: Nearly every major AI company faces similar copyright infringement allegations as the industry races to develop more sophisticated models.

• President Trump has weighed in supporting tech companies, saying in July: “You can’t be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book, or anything else that you’ve read or studied, you’re supposed to pay for.”
• Strike 3’s attorney frames the issue as fundamental: “There is no appetite in this country for what AI companies appear to be doing, which is making money off the backs of rights holders who never gave permission for it.”