Renowned attorney and Stanford University professor Mark Lemley has stepped down from representing Meta Platforms Inc. in a significant copyright lawsuit, citing profound ethical concerns regarding CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent actions. In a LinkedIn post, Lemley accused Zuckerberg of embracing “toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” a stance he found irreconcilable with his professional values.

Background of Lemley’s Departure

Lemley, a celebrated intellectual property (IP) scholar and director of Stanford Law’s program in law, science, and technology, stated that while he still believes Meta is “on the right side” of the ongoing generative AI copyright dispute, he could “no longer in good conscience” serve as their attorney. This decision follows controversial moves by Zuckerberg, including terminating diversity initiatives and fact-checking on Facebook, and promoting the supposed benefits of “masculine energy.”

In light of Lemley’s withdrawal, Meta’s defense will now be handled by attorneys from Cooley LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

The Generative AI Copyright Dispute

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, centers on whether AI companies infringe copyright law by training their models on copyrighted materials without compensation.

The plaintiffs, including comedian Sarah Silverman, author Ta-Nehisi Coates, novelist Richard Kadrey, and politician Mike Huckabee, argue that AI companies exploit their works, often sourced from pirated databases, to train AI systems for profit. The plaintiffs claim this practice violates their rights and demands accountability.

On the other hand, Meta and other AI companies assert that their actions fall under the fair use doctrine. They argue that no single copyrighted work plays a significant role in shaping AI outputs, and imposing strict liability on data usage would hinder the development of transformative technologies.

Lemley’s Legal Legacy

As a founding partner at Lex Lumina LLP, Lemley has built a distinguished career in IP law, First Amendment rights, and antitrust matters. He has authored 11 books, argued in dozens of appellate cases, and contributed to more than three dozen US Supreme Court cases, including the landmark Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith decision. His departure from Meta’s legal team is a significant development in this high-stakes case.

Zuckerberg’s Leadership Under Scrutiny

Zuckerberg’s leadership decisions have sparked widespread criticism. In an August 26 letter to Congress, Zuckerberg defended his recent actions as necessary to uphold free speech and resist government pressure, particularly in the context of COVID-19-related content moderation. However, critics argue that these changes amplify the risks of hate speech and misinformation on Meta’s platforms.

In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg attempted to balance his rhetoric, expressing support for creating opportunities for women while also endorsing a “culture that celebrates aggression” as having “positive merits.”

Lemley’s Protest Against Meta

In addition to stepping down from the case, Lemley has deactivated his account on Threads, Meta’s microblogging platform, and vowed to avoid clicking Facebook ads to deny the company ad revenue. While he considered leaving Facebook entirely, Lemley explained that doing so would sever valuable connections, stating, “It doesn’t seem fair I should lose those connections because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis.”

Implications for the Case

The lawsuit—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417—has profound implications for the future of AI development and copyright law. With Lemley’s withdrawal, the case gains an added layer of complexity, spotlighting the ethical and cultural tensions within the tech industry.

As the legal battle unfolds, the question of how to balance innovation with creator rights and corporate ethics remains at the forefront, raising important considerations for the broader tech and legal landscapes.