A high-stakes copyright infringement lawsuit where The New York Times alleges OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of its articles to train ChatGPT without permission. The case involves complex discovery disputes over user data and ChatGPT logs, privacy concerns, and fundamental questions about fair use in AI training. Billions in damages are at stake.
Analysis Date: 2026-01-03
Discovery ongoing.
The core question is whether OpenAI's use of The New York Times' articles to train its AI models constitutes copyright infringement or falls under the fair use doctrine. The Times argues that their articles were used without permission, while OpenAI may contend that the use is transformative. This is a significant unresolved issue as it will determine the legality of AI training practices. [1], [2], [3], [4], [10]
The New York Times claims that OpenAI's actions have caused market harm to its business model, which raises questions about the economic impact of AI on traditional media. The dispute centers on whether AI companies should compensate content creators for using their works, a question that remains open. [3], [4], [5], [7]
The scope of discovery in this case is a contentious point, particularly regarding OpenAI's data retention obligations and whether it must preserve user content indefinitely as requested by The New York Times. This raises unresolved questions about the extent of discovery and data preservation requirements in AI-related litigation. [3], [12]
Jurisdictional questions arise regarding the applicability of international copyright law and whether the case should be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Times is the first major media organization to file such a lawsuit, which could set a precedent for future cases. [1], [5], [16]
OpenAI has accused The New York Times of hacking its systems to gather evidence for the lawsuit, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the evidence presented and the ethical implications of such claims. This aspect of the case remains unresolved and could impact the credibility of both parties. [9], [10]