Independent · Nonprofit · Open access
Deep Lex

Individual case record

Kleiner v. Adobe Inc.

IP & CopyrightStatus: Consolidated

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

View on CourtListener ↗
Court
N.D. Cal.
Docket
5:26-cv-01218
Filed
9 Feb 2026
AI system
SlimLM

Part of a consolidated proceeding

Lyon v. Adobe Inc.

This page covers the individual action. For coordinated filings and updates, consult the lead court docket. The consolidated overview links the related actions.

Go to consolidated proceeding

Individual case record

Overview

Kleiner v. Adobe Inc. is a class action commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff, a published author, alleges that Adobe Inc. unlawfully used copyrighted books to train its SlimLM artificial intelligence models without authorisation or compensation.

Facts & Claims

On 9 February 2026, Arthur Kleiner commenced class action proceedings against Adobe Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging copyright infringement and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The Complaint asserts that Adobe surreptitiously used authors' copyrighted books without consent to train its SlimLM small language models, AI software optimised for document assistance tasks on mobile devices, contending this violates Adobe's own terms of service. According to the pleadings, SlimLM was pretrained on a dataset called "SlimPajama-627B," alleged to derive from the RedPajama dataset containing the Books3 corpus, hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books acquired without authorisation. The Complaint further alleges that Adobe continues to benefit commercially from this infringement through enterprise contracts and deployment of AI software across its product suite.

The Plaintiff, whose registered work "The Age of Heretics: Heroes, Outlaws, and the Forerunners of Corporate Change," was allegedly included in the training datasets, seeks to represent a class of similarly situated authors and copyright holders. Adobe has allegedly never compensated authors for downloading, copying, storing, or using their copyrighted works.

The Complaint pre-empts a fair use defence across all four statutory factors: Adobe's use was strictly commercial and non-transformative; the copied works were highly creative and commercially available; entire works were copied without modification; and market displacement is direct, as unlicensed downloading substitutes for legitimate licensing. The Complaint further notes that licensed alternatives existed and Adobe declined to pursue them, undermining any fair use argument at the outset.

The Plaintiff seek class certification, statutory damages for copyright infringement, a declaration of wilful infringement, destruction of all infringing copies, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

This summary is provided for educational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Allegations described are those made in the filings. Please consult the underlying source documents.

Source documents

Documents

Read the complaint and available amendments. For coordinated filings, consult the lead court docket. View consolidated proceeding →

Loading document records…

Connections

Related content

Models & Systems

SlimLM

Source evidence available

Procedural record

Court & docket history

Docket entries from the past three months. For the complete history and latest filings, follow the source docket. Coordinated proceedings have a separate lead docket.

View full docket on CourtListener ↗

Loading docket entries…

Latest filing recorded: 1 Jul 2026.