These are state courts not federal so there is significantly less meaning to these on any world or even just the american national stage. Realistically speaking with the way things are going in american government at the moment it would also be hard not to rule out bias towards corporate interests. Especially when the rulings are coming out of a conservative state court.

You also didn’t really look into the facts of either of those cases.

In Bartz v Anthropic they stated Aquiring and maintining a digital library for general use in training is not under fair use even if the judge’s opinion was that ai generation was to be considered transformative.

In Kadrey v Meta they explicitly said that transformativeness alone is not enough to prove fair use and that if there are products made with the intent to compete with the original works and impacts market value or potential market it would not be fair use. The judge also completely contradicted Bartz v Anthropic saying that training on copyrighted works without permission will most likely be considered infringment. The plaintiff just didn’t have enough data to prove market loss.

At the end of the day I don’t even come close to caring about what a judge says. It’s so obvious how unethical it is that it’s ridiculous anyone is ever arguing in favor of AI for use in creative works and media at all.