ON
← Back to feed
AI companies accused of hoarding and destroying millions of books
United States🏛️ PoliticsProgressive2 days ago

AI companies accused of hoarding and destroying millions of books

More than a dozen public interest and consumer advocacy groups have urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate major artificial intelligence (AI) companies for allegedly purchasing, scanning, and destroying books used to train their large language models. The groups, including the Demand Progress Education Fund and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, describe this 'hoard-and-destroy' practice as destructive and anticompetitive, arguing that it removes nonrenewable resources from public access and creates barriers for smaller competitors. They claim that in some cases, the destroyed books are the last surviving copies of original works, potentially violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce. The groups reference a 2024 copyright lawsuit against AI firm Anthropic, which was later dismissed on copyright grounds, and a recent 404 Media investigation alleging similar practices at Amazon.

More than a dozen public interest and consumer advocacy groups have called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate major artificial intelligence developers for alleged practices of purchasing, scanning and destroying books used to train their large language models. The groups describe these actions as “destructive” and “anticompetitive,” arguing that such behavior threatens both public access to knowledge and fair market competition. According to a letter sent to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador on Friday, the groups include the Demand Progress Education Fund, Consumer Federation of America and Institute for Local Self-Reliance, among others. They claim that AI companies are buying books in bulk, digitizing the content to train their AI applications and then destroying the physical copies. Some of the books destroyed are reportedly the last surviving copies of original works, raising concerns over the loss of irreplaceable cultural and historical materials. Critics refer to this process as “hoard-and-destroy,” suggesting that it creates barriers for both the general public and smaller competitors seeking to develop their own AI systems. By limiting access to source material, they argue, AI firms may be ensuring that only the wealthiest players can maintain high-quality models. This, they say, results in a monopolization of human knowledge, with the originals being destroyed to facilitate training. The letter also references an August 2024 copyright lawsuit filed by writer Andrea Bartz and others against AI developer Anthropic. The plaintiffs accused Anthropic of acquiring, scanning and discarding millions of print books to train its AI model, Claude. In 2025, a judge ruled that Anthropic’s use of legally purchased books did not violate copyright law. However, the case highlighted ongoing tensions around the ethical and legal boundaries of using copyrighted material for AI training. Separately, a recent investigation by digital publisher 404 Media found that Amazon is engaging in similar activities. According to the report, Amazon is buying books in bulk, scanning them to train its AI tools and then destroying the physical copies. The findings were shared with the public this week, though Amazon has yet to comment on the allegations. These accusations come amid growing scrutiny of the role of AI companies in shaping the future of information access and intellectual property rights. While the FTC has not yet taken action, the pressure from advocacy groups suggests that regulatory attention may soon follow. The groups are requesting that the commission assess the extent of the practice and identify how many of the destroyed books are the final copies of their respective works. The situation raises complex questions about the balance between technological innovation and the preservation of cultural heritage. As AI continues to evolve, so too does the debate over the ethical implications of its development. With more reports emerging, the conversation surrounding the impact of AI on literature and knowledge is likely to intensify in the coming months.

Go to the primary sources (2)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

1 reports

CBS News (US) logoCBS News (US)IndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 702 days ago
AI companies accused of hoarding and destroying millions of books

More than a dozen public interest and consumer advocacy groups have urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate major artificial intelligence (AI) companies for allegedly purchasing, scanning, and destroying books used to train their large language models. The groups, including the Demand Progress Education Fund and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, describe this 'hoard-and-destroy' practice as destructive and anticompetitive, arguing that it removes nonrenewable resources from public access and creates barriers for smaller competitors. They claim that in some cases, the destroyed books are the last surviving copies of original works, potentially violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce. The groups reference a 2024 copyright lawsuit against AI firm Anthropic, which was later dismissed on copyright grounds, and a recent 404 Media investigation alleging similar practices at Amazon.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the actions of AI companies as 'destructive' and 'anticompetitive,' emphasizing concerns about monopolization and the removal of public resources. It highlights the potential violation of the FTC Act and focuses on the perspective of advocacy groups, suggesting a critical stance.

Why factuality (85): The article aligns closely with the primary source document from 404 Media, confirming that Amazon is buying books, scanning them for AI training data, and destroying them. It mentions the involvement of multiple advocacy groups and references the 'hoard-and-destroy' critique, which matches the conc

Why objectivity (70): The article presents the issue with a critical tone, emphasizing the negative impact on public access to books and suggesting potential regulatory action. While it reports facts accurately, it frames the situation as a problem requiring intervention, which introduces a degree of editorial bias.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories