The same H3 Podcast company suing Meta has a near-identical case against Apple — and this one names a specific dataset. It is a rare window into how a trillion-dollar company allegedly sourced the video its AI learned from.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a pending class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations from TED Entertainment's court filings. Apple has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
TED Entertainment, Inc. (TEI) — the company behind Ethan and Hila Klein's H3 Podcast — sued Apple Inc. on April 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, TED Entertainment, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02936, is a proposed class action alleging Apple scraped copyrighted YouTube videos to train a generative text-to-video AI model. As in the company's parallel suit against Meta, Ethan Klein is the public face of TEI but is not a named individual plaintiff; the company is the plaintiff, joined by golf creator Matt Fisher (the channel MrShortGame) and Golfholics, Inc.The single cause of action is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention provision (17 U.S.C. § 1201). The complaint alleges Apple bypassed YouTube's technological protection measures — reportedly using tools such as computers with rotating IP addresses to evade the platform's defenses — to harvest videos and feed them into its AI training pipeline. What makes the Apple case concrete is that it names a specific dataset: the complaint centers on Panda-70M, a machine-learning dataset of roughly 70 million video-caption pairs derived from about 3.8 million YouTube videos, and alleges that hundreds of TEI's h3h3 and H3 Podcast videos appear in it. These are allegations; Apple denies them and has moved to dismiss.
The Allegations Against Apple
The complaint's theory is that Apple, like other companies racing to build video AI, needed enormous quantities of real-world footage and turned to YouTube to get it. The plaintiffs allege Apple circumvented the protections that stop YouTube's video files from being downloaded en masse, then routed the harvested videos into training data for a generative model. The reference to Panda-70M is the heart of the pleading: the plaintiffs allege that identifiable TEI videos are inside that dataset, and that their presence there is evidence the videos were taken and used without permission.One important caveat runs through the case. Apple has not publicly released a generative text-to-video product, and the complaint itself frames such a model as part of Apple's future plans rather than a shipped product. So the dispute is about how training material was allegedly obtained, not about a consumer product on sale today. Whether Apple accessed the videos, and whether that would violate § 1201, are exactly the questions now before the court.
Apple's Defense and the Access-Control Question
Apple — now represented by prominent copyright litigator Dale Cendali of Kirkland & Ellis, with attorneys from Latham & Watkins — has moved to dismiss. Its central argument is a legal one about the scope of § 1201: the statute's anti-circumvention provision targets "access controls," and Apple contends that public YouTube videos, which anyone can watch for free, are not protected by an access control at all. On that reading, scraping public videos would fall outside the provision even if it happened. Apple also points to YouTube's own Terms of Service as the governing framework. The plaintiffs disagree, arguing the videos are in fact guarded by technological measures that § 1201 protects.The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, after an earlier reassignment. A hearing on Apple's motion to dismiss was set for August 6, 2026. As of this writing, no ruling had been issued, no class has been certified, and nothing has been decided on the merits.
Part of a Broader Campaign
The Apple suit is one of a cluster of parallel lawsuits TEI, Fisher, and Golfholics filed raising the same YouTube-scraping theory against multiple tech and AI companies — reported defendants include Meta, ByteDance (TikTok's parent), Snap, and Amazon. OCA covers the companion TED Entertainment v. Meta case separately; it turns on the same DMCA § 1201 access-control question. Because that question is common to all of the suits, an early ruling in any one of them — Apple's or another's — could shape how the rest proceed.The AI-scraping campaign is entirely separate from Klein's company's other recent copyright litigation over reaction streams of the "Content Nuke" video, which produced a fair-use ruling for Denims and a default judgment fight with Frogan. Different defendants, different legal theories — but the same company at the center of an unusually busy stretch of copyright cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Ethan Klein personally suing Apple?
Not individually. The named plaintiff is TED Entertainment, Inc. (TEI), the company behind Ethan and Hila Klein's H3 Podcast. Two other YouTube creators — golf channel MrShortGame (Matt Fisher) and Golfholics, Inc. — are co-plaintiffs. The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of similarly situated creators.
What does the lawsuit accuse Apple of doing?
The complaint alleges Apple circumvented YouTube's technological protection measures — reportedly using tools such as rotating IP addresses — to scrape copyrighted videos into a machine-learning dataset known as Panda-70M, and used them to train a generative text-to-video AI model, in violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision (17 U.S.C. § 1201). These are unproven allegations; Apple denies wrongdoing and has moved to dismiss.
Has Apple actually released an AI video product?
Not that has been confirmed. The complaint frames a generative video model as part of Apple's future plans rather than a shipped product, so any commercial AI video product tied to the alleged scraping is described as prospective. That distinction matters — the case is about how training data was allegedly obtained, not about a product on sale today.
What stage is the case at, and can I claim anything?
It is at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Apple moved to dismiss the DMCA claim, and a hearing was set for August 6, 2026 before Judge Richard Seeborg. No class has been certified, there is no settlement and no fund, and there is nothing for the public to claim. Eligible creators would only be notified through the court process if a class is ever certified and a recovery reached.
Sources
• CourtListener — TED Entertainment, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:26-cv-02936 (N.D. Cal.)• MacRumors — Apple sued by three YouTube channels over AI training
• MacRumors — Apple's motion to dismiss the YouTuber AI lawsuit
• AppleInsider — coverage of the filing and Panda-70M allegations
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
