OpenAI and ChatGPT Lawsuit List

We looked at all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI and listed them below. In addition to the relevant detail we had a lawyer provide some commentary. 

This list will remain updated as an easy-to-reference location for any lawsuits against OpenAI ordered by date (oldest to newest).

None of the information below is legal advice. 

Presently, the jurisdictional disputes aimed at OpenAI and its AI model, ChatGPT, remain in their nascent phases, the conclusive determinations of which remain elusive. Also, these legal actions signify the inevitability of burgeoning legal conundrums emblematic of the AI domain in the impending years.

Here's all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI and ChatGPT are given below:

• Ziff Davis v. OpenAI - April 24, 2025
• Canadian News Outlets v. OpenAI - November 28, 2024
• ANI v. OpenAI - November 19, 2024
• Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, and OpenAI - August 5, 2024
• Daily News Lp Et Al V. Microsoft Corporation - April 30, 2024.
• Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, and OpenAI - February 29, 2024
• The Intercept Media v. OpenAI and Microsoft - February 28, 2024
• Raw Story Media, Inc. and Alternet Media Inc. v. OpenAI - February 28, 2024 
• The New York Times Company v. Openai Inc. - December 27, 2023.
• Sancton v. OpenAI Inc. et al - November 21, 2023.
• Authors Guild et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al - September 19, 2023.
• Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. - September 8, 2023.
• OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. - August 4, 2023.
• Doe 3 et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al - November 10, 2022.
• DOE 1 et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al - November 3, 2022.
• T. et al v. OpenAI LP et al - September 5, 2023.
• Walters v. OpenAI LLC - July 14, 2023.
• Silverman, et al v. OpenAI Inc. - July 7, 2023.
• Tremblay v. OpenAI Inc. - June 28, 2023.
• PM et al v. OpenAI LP et al - June 28, 2023.

Try Originality.ai's Content Integrity Tools:

AI Checker

‍Fact Checker

‍Plagiarism Detection

‍Readability Checker

Case 20: Ziff Davis v. OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case No/Court File No.: 1:25-cv-00501-UNA
• Complaint Filed: April 24, 2025
• Nature of Action: Copyright Infringement, DMCA Violations, Unjust Enrichment, Trademark Dilution

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Ziff Davis, Inc., Ziff Davis, LLC, IGN Entertainment Inc., and Everyday Health Media, LLC
• Defendant: OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, and OpenAI Holdings

Reference: 

Complaint. Access through: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ziff-davis-v-open-ai-complaint-usdc-northern-delaware.pdf

Nature of the Action: 

Ziff Davis alleges that OpenAI copied, removed copyright management information from, and created derivative works based on its copyrighted articles without authorization. According to the complaint, OpenAI not only trained its large language models using Ziff Davis content – but also integrated that content into its chatbot and search responses:

“5. Specifically, Defendant OpenAI has and continues to knowingly… Reproduce, distribute, display, perform, and make available for access, Ziff Davis Works verbatim and in close paraphrase and derivative form (but with CMI removed)” - Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section: Introduction 5. f)

Note: In the above quote, CMI refers to copyright management information

The lawsuit also accuses OpenAI of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing copyright metadata and working around technical controls that Ziff Davis had put in place, like robots.txt files. 

“Despite Ziff Davis’s implementation of the robots.txt instructions, OpenAI, using its GPTBot, thereafter continued to actively scrape and make copies of content from Ziff Davis websites without abatement.” - Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section 117)

Ziff Davis claims these actions have hurt its business by reducing any web traffic-related revenue, cutting into potential licensing deals, and falsely attributing content both to and from its brands.

“...by misattributing content by Ziff Davis to other publishers or content by other publishers to Ziff Davis, OpenAI is undermining the public’s perception of Ziff Davis.” Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section 197)

Claims:

Ziff Davis argues that OpenAI should be held liable for the following claims:

• Copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 by using Ziff Davis’s copyrighted content to train its AI models without permission
• DMCA violations, due to the removal of copyright management information from Ziff Davis’s content and bypassing its technical prevention methods
• Trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and Delaware law from falsely attributing fabricated or otherwise AI-generated content to Ziff Davis’s trusted brand names
• Unjust enrichment by benefitting from training its AI models on Ziff Davis’s content
• False attribution and derivative work misuse by generating AI outputs that either incorrectly credit Ziff Davis as the source or change and reproduce its copyrighted works without proper attribution

Case Summary:

The fact that Ziff Davis is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement isn’t all that surprising, given the growing list of publishers doing the same. However, this complaint does stand out for combining the more traditional copyright claims with trademark dilution, which focuses more on the reputational harm that false attributions can have on trusted brands.

It also includes another element often missing from similar AI-related lawsuits: detailed examples of ChatGPT outputs that appear to reproduce or at least closely paraphrase Ziff Davis’s content. Unlike other media companies that simply allege that OpenAI uses their work in training, Ziff Davis provides concrete examples of how its content pops up in ChatGPT’s responses.

Key Issues:

• Copyright Infringement: Does storing and reproducing Ziff Davis’s content during AI model training violate the Copyright Act?
• DMCA Violations: Did OpenAI unlawfully remove copyright management information or bypass scraping protections to collect training data?
• Fair Use: If AI outputs contain verbatim or even closely paraphrased content from Ziff Davis’s copyrighted works, can OpenAI still claim fair use?
• Derivative Works: If ChatGPT’s responses mirror Ziff Davis’s content that closely, do its outputs count as unauthorized derivative works?
• Trademark Dilution: Does falsely attributing content to or from Ziff Davis’s brands weaken their distinctiveness or damage their reputation?
• Unjust Enrichment: By scraping Ziff Davis’s content to train its commercial AI models without paying for it, has OpenAI unfairly profited?

Potential Impact:

• Stronger Copyright Standards for AI Outputs: A win for Ziff Davis could help courts draw a clearer line around when AI-generated responses infringe copyright, especially when they reproduce or closely paraphrase protected material.
• Trademark Dilution as a New AI Legal Challenge: By alleging that the false attribution of AI outputs hurts brand reputation, Ziff Davis could open the door for more trademark-based challenges in future AI lawsuits.
• Licensing Pressure on Digital Media Platforms: If OpenAI loses on this front, it may push AI companies to secure licenses from digital-first media companies, not just legacy publishers.
• Increased Legal Risk for Ignoring Robots.txt: If OpenAI is found guilty of bypassing scraping protections, it could reinforce the idea that ignoring robots.txt files could have legal implications.
• Scraped Content as a Commercial Liability: A ruling in favor of Ziff Davis could increase both the legal and financial risks for companies that monetize tools built on scraped content, as it argues that outputs can hurt both a publisher’s brand and bottom line.

Relief Sought:

• A court order requiring OpenAI to stop using, displaying, or distributing any content based on Ziff Davis’s copyrighted works.
  
  • “from further exploiting the Registered Works in any manner” - Prayer for Relief, section a 
• The removal of any Ziff Davis content from OpenAI’s models and datasets, whether it has been copied directly or used to create derivative works
  
  • “Ordering the destruction of any datasets and models created by OpenAI that contain, or that cannot be shown to have fully and permanently deleted, Plaintiffs’ copyright works or any derivative content OpenAI has created from Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.”  - Prayer for Relief, section f 
• Financial compensation, as well as reimbursement for legal fees and related costs

Case 19: November 28, 2024, Canadian News Outlets v. OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
• Case No/Court File No.: CV-24-00732231-00CL
• Complaint Filed: November 28, 2024
• Nature of Action: Copyright Infringement

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Canadian news media companies, including the Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, Metroland Media Group Ltd., Postmedia Network Inc., PNI Maritimes LP, The Globe and Mail Inc., Canadian Press Enterprises Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
• Defendant: OpenAI, including OpenAI Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I, LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Global, LLC, OpenAI OPCO, LLC, OAI Corporation

Reference: 

Statement of Claim. Access through: https://litigate.com/assets/uploads/Canadian-News-Media-Companies-v-OpenAI.pdf

Nature of the Action: 

This lawsuit alleges copyright infringement against OpenAI by several leading Canadian news outlets, including the Toronto Star, CBC/Radio-Canada, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia, Metroland, and the Canadian Press. As with similar cases against OpenAI in the United States, the plaintiffs claim that OpenAI is committing copyright infringement by using content from the Canadian media to train its products like ChatGPT.

Claims:

The Canadian news outlets argue that OpenAI is guilty of and liable for the following:

• Copying their news articles and other copyrighted material to train its large language models (LLMs) without permission for its use.
• Going around safeguards that the plaintiffs put in place to prevent this unauthorized scraping and copying.
• Unfairly profiting from their copyrighted material by using it to improve their products like ChatGPT without providing any kind of payment to the original publishers

Case Summary:

Though it’s the first of its kind in Canada (source), this case from major Canadian news organizations follows similar cases from United States media outlets, such as the Daily News LP and the New York Times. Their claims that OpenAI is using and profiting from their copyrighted content without permission is another example of the growing concern surrounding the unauthorized use of data for AI training purposes.

Key Issues:

• Copyright Infringement vs Fair Use: Although the plaintiffs argue this is copyright infringement, OpenAI may claim that using their data for AI training qualifies as fair use.
• Bypassing Technological Safeguards: If the court finds that bypassing these safeguards counts as a willful act of infringement, the defendants may face more severe consequences than if it was more passive or incidental.
• Economic Harm: Do OpenAI’s actions prevent or harm the publishers from profiting off their original works? OpenAI could say they don’t replace or compete with the original material.

Potential Impact:

• Legal Precedents for Data Scraping and AI Training: With so much confusion surrounding copyright laws and AI, this case could set new Canadian legal standards for large-scale data scraping and AI training.
• Changes in AI Training Practices: If OpenAI is found guilty of copyright infringement, it could change how companies collect and train their AI models.
• Licensing and Compensation: AI developers may need to get licenses, share revenue, or pay other types of fees to continue using this type of content.

Relief Sought:

• A legal recognition of their rights, and that OpenAI is liable for violating them.
• Damages and a portion of the profits made from the copyright infringement.
• To stop OpenAI from the continued unauthorized use of their content.

With more and more copyright infringement-related lawsuits coming at OpenAI from various news media organizations, the outcomes of these cases could set legal precedents for the current grey area between AI and copyright.

Case 18: ANI v. OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: High Court of Delhi, India
• Case No.: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
• Complaint Filed: November 19, 2024 (official lawsuit is unavailable online; see court order and Reuters reporting on the case below)
• Nature of Action: Copyright Infringement, False Attribution, Unfair Competition

Parties:

• Plaintiff: ANI Media Pvt Ltd (Asian News International)
• Defendant: OpenAI Inc. and ANR (and others)

Reference: 

Court Order. Access through: https://www.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ANI_vs_OPEN_AI.pdf

Reuters. Access through:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/indian-news-agency-ani-sues-openai-unsanctioned-content-use-ai-training-2024-11-19/

Nature of the Action:

According to Reuters, ANI alleges that OpenAI committed copyright infringement by using ANI’s copyrighted material to train its large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, without permission. Since OpenAI has entered into content licensing deals with other media organizations (check out our article on OpenAI Partnerships), ANI claims its continued use of its content could lead to unfair competition.

ANI also alleges that ChatGPT credits false information to the news organization. As detailed in a Hindustan Times article, ANI claims that these hallucinations may promote the spread of fake news and damage its reputation as a legitimate news provider. It’s important to note that, according to an article published later by Reuters in January 2025, Hindustan Times is part of a media group that was seeking to join the copyright lawsuit.

Claims:

ANI’s lawsuit makes the following claims against OpenAI:

• Unauthorized use of ANI’s copyrighted content to train OpenAI’s LLMs 
• False attribution of fabricated news to ANI
• Unfair competition, as OpenAI has signed content licensing agreements with other international media organizations

(Reuters)

Case Summary:

Although it’s the first of its kind in India, ANI’s lawsuit against OpenAI is comparable to other cases where media outlets have raised concerns against the company regarding the unauthorized use of data for AI training purposes. So, it's no surprise that OpenAI’s public position is similar, stating that its models learn from aggregated, publicly available data, which it argues falls under fair use and similar principles.

Key Issues

• Copyright Infringement. Does storing ANI’s data for AI training purposes infringe upon ANI’s copyright?
• Use of Copyrighted Content. Does generating responses directly from ANI’s copyrighted content data count as copyright infringement?
• Fair Use. Does OpenAI’s use of ANI’s copyrighted content fall under the category of fair use, as outlined in the Copyright Act of 1957?
• Jurisdiction. Since its servers are located in the United States, can Indian courts even entertain this lawsuit in the first place?

(court order)

Potential Impact

• AI Copyright Liability in India: As the first AI copyright case brought by a media company in India, ANI’s lawsuit could set a national precedent for how Indian courts interpret AI training under copyright law. Further, a panel has recently been established in India to review existing copyright laws in the context of AI, as noted by Reuters.
• Global Pressure for Licensing Agreements: As an international case, a win for ANI may pressure OpenAI and similar companies to license content globally.
• Clarification of Fair Use in AI: This case could help define the limits of fair use under India’s Copyright Act.
• Jurisdictional Precedent for Cross-Border AI Litigation: A ruling on whether Indian courts can assert jurisdiction over a US-based company like OpenAI could influence how other international plaintiffs go after AI-related claims across borders.
• Judicial Recognition of AI-Generated Outputs as Infringing: If the court finds that ChatGPT’s responses count as unauthorized reproduction of ANI’s content, it could strengthen the argument that AI outputs aren’t just derivative, but can infringe in their own right.
• Legal Questions Around AI-Generated Information: It may not be one of the key issues here, but ANI’s allegations of reputational harm from hallucinated or misattributed content could push courts to start considering the legal status of AI-generated misinformation.

Relief Sought:

• An ex parte ad-interim injunction (a temporary order granted without hearing the other side) to prevent OpenAI and ChatGPT from storing, publishing, or using ANI’s copyrighted works
• A court order directing OpenAI to disable ChatGPT’s access to any content published by ANI or its subscribers

(court order)

Case Status:

There have been several key developments to this case since November 2024.

OpenAI’s position. According to Reuters, in January, 2025, OpenAI told the court that removing ChatGPT’s training data would go against its legal obligations in the US.

More specifically, OpenAI argues that it can’t delete its AI training data because it has similar hearings pending in the US. It also asserted that Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction in the matter because its servers are in the US.

New parties seek to join. Reuters reports that in January 2025, the Federation of Indian Publishers, including publishers like Bloomsbury, Penguin Random House, and Rupa Publications, moved to join ANI’s lawsuit. 

In a December 2024 filing, the federation claimed its members had evidence that OpenAI trained ChatGPT with their copyrighted material. They argue that unless OpenAI enters licensing agreements with their members, it should delete their content and compensate publishers accordingly.

Additional media plaintiffs. Reuters reports that yet another a group of Indian media outlets, including NDTV, the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), the Indian Express, and the Hindustan Times, sought to join ANI’s legal proceedings against OpenAI in January 2025. They accuse OpenAI of scraping their copyrighted content.

OpenAI’s rebuttal: In a filing dated February 11, 2025, OpenAI denies it "has used any of the applicants' or the DNPA's members' content”, according to Reuters.

Bollywood labels enter the picture: According to Reuters, as of February 2025, some Bollywood music labels, including T-Series, Saregama, and Sony, also expressed their intent to join ANI’s lawsuit against OpenAI. Similar to other plaintiffs, they allege that OpenAI used their recordings without permission to train its AI models.

Jurisdictional review. Later on in February 2025, India Today reports that the Delhi High Court-appointed amicus curiae, Dr. Arul George Scaria, found that the court does indeed have jurisdiction to hear the case. The amicus stated that since users could both access and pay for the service in India, the court should have jurisdiction.

India panel to review copyright laws. As of May 2025, Reuters notes that India has set up a panel to evaluate current copyright laws in the age of AI, and whether they are sufficient.

Case 17: August 5, 2024, Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, and OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: United States District Court Northern District of California
• Case No.: 3:24-cv-04722
• Complaint Filed: August 5, 2024
• Nature of Action: Breach of Contract, Civil RICO Violations, Fraud, False Advertising, Unfair Competition, etc. (note this is a summary–access reference below for full list)

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Elon Musk
• Defendant: Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, et al. (access reference below for full list)

Reference: 

Complaint. Access through: https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/08/05/musk_v_openai.pdf

Nature of the Action:

Musk’s second lawsuit against OpenAI, Altman, Brockman, et al. alleges civil RICO violations, fraud, false advertising, unfair competition, and breach of contract. He claims they went against the original nonprofit mission outlined in the Founding Agreement by prioritizing profit-driven activities, misleading donors, and misusing their contributions.

What’s interesting is that many of these same charges were filed in February 2024 and then withdrawn in June 2024. However, the addition of fraud and RICO violations kicks this case up a notch. 

Now, Musk alleges that OpenAI is also guilty of systematically conspiring to defraud him and other donors by misleading them about its nonprofit mission while still using their funds to support for-profit activities.

Claims:

Musk’s lawsuit makes the following claims against OpenAI and other defendants:

• Racketeering and corrupt practices, including a conspiracy to defraud Musk and other donors.
• Intentionally misrepresenting their nonprofit mission to help secure funding from donors.
• False advertising that misled donors and the public about why and how OpenAI was to use their funds.
• Unfair competition by engaging in deceptive business practices.
• Violating agreements made with Musk about its nonprofit mission and use of funds.

Case Summary:

Since it covers many of the same allegations as his previous withdrawn lawsuit against OpenAI, it may be surprising to see Musk refile the case so soon. However, this may have been a strategic move. 

It was his decision to dismiss the case without prejudice that enabled him to refile, which may have given him and his attorneys the extra time they needed to put together a stronger case. 

Key Issues:

• Misrepresentation of Nonprofit Mission: Did OpenAI mislead Musk and other donors by secretly switching from a nonprofit to a for-profit model?
• Misuse of Donor Funds: Did OpenAI’s collection and use of donor funds fall in line with their nonprofit mission statement?
• Civil RICO Violations: Did OpenAI make a coordinated effort to use deceptive activities to get funding and partnerships?
• Breach of Contract: Is OpenAI guilty of breaking agreements they made to Musk about its nonprofit status and the use of his donations?
• Unfair Competition and False Advertising: Did OpenAI engage in false advertising and unjust business practices by misrepresenting their nonprofit status and misleading donors?
• Accountability for Microsoft Partnership: Is this allegedly deceptive shift to for-profit activities connected to OpenAI’s agreements with Microsoft?

Potential Impact:

• Accountability for Nonprofits: A win here could establish a legal precedent where nonprofits could be kept accountable to donors if they move to a for-profit model.
• Transparency in AI Development: AI companies in particular may need to be more transparent about their funding and how their use of it aligns with their mission.
• Donor Rights: Donors may receive new rights that would let them hold organizations accountable for misrepresentation or misuse of funds.
• OpenAI’s Operations: OpenAI could face serious penalties or restrictions that would limit current activities, resulting in notable implications for business operations.
• Tech Partnerships: The targeting of OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft could cause tech companies to introduce new safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

Relief Sought:

• Prevent OpenAI from becoming an entirely for-profit company (source). 
• The establishment of a ‘constructive trust’ for “ill-gotten gains, property, and assets traceable to Musk’s significant contributions to OpenAI, Inc.”
• A transparent account of how all funds, “gains, profits, and advantages” were used.

Case Status:

Amended Complaint. On November 14, 2024, Musk’s attorneys filed an amended complaint. This one expands on the claims in the original complaint, with some of the most notable additions including allegations under antitrust laws, self-dealing, and also alleges a conspiracy involving Microsoft’s using OpenAI for monopolistic practices as reported by The Verge.

OpenAI’s latest response. On December 13, 2024, OpenAI published an article in response, Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit, including a detailed timeline of events and screenshots of email correspondence.

Court rejects Musk’s injunction. As reported in Reuters, on March 4, 2025, the court denied Musk’s request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily block OpenAI’s transition into a for-profit model. 

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Musk’s team didn’t have “the high burden required for a preliminary injunction” in this situation. However, she also noted that she wanted to quickly resolve the issue due to public interest and potential for harm, and agreed to a trial in the fall of this year.

Public response from OpenAI. On March 14, 2025, in a public response titled The court rejects Elon’s latest attempt to slow OpenAI down on its website, OpenAI noted that it welcomes the court’s decision. The company believes “this ruling brings us a big step closer to putting this ridiculous lawsuit to rest”.

OpenAI files a countersuit. According to Reuters, on April 9, 2025, OpenAI filed a countersuit against Musk. Since OpenAI alleges that this isn’t an isolated case, but part of a broader pattern of harassment, it asks that a federal judge stop Musk from continuing any unlawful action against them and hold him responsible for any of the damages that have already occurred. 

Former employees back Musk. Reuters also reports that on April 11, 2025, a group of 12 former OpenAI employees filed a legal brief supporting Musk’s case. The group, made up of members who filled both technical and leadership positions within OpenAI, said that its nonprofit nature was key to fulfilling its mission, and a big part of why some people felt inspired to join the company in the first place.

California Attorney General declines to intervene. On April 15, 2025, Reuters reported that the California attorney general’s office said that it wouldn’t join Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, as it didn’t see “how Musk’s action serves the public interest of the state”, instead stating that it seemed he was acting in his own self interest.

In a response letter dated the next day, Musk’s lawyer claims this wasn’t the case. He further went on to say that “Musk does not want to buy OpenAI,” even though the same article highlights that Musk took part in an unsolicited bid to purchase OpenAI for $97 billion in February 2025.

Partial dismissal ruling. In a court order filed on May 1, 2025, reported on by the Courthouse News Service, Judge Gonzalez Rogers made some decisions on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. The court allowed Musk’s claims for fraud and breach of implied contract to proceed, but granted dismissal of his RICO claims (with leave to amend) and breach of fiduciary duty claims (although the dismissal was only granted for OpenAI and not Microsoft). She also granted Musk time to amend several of the dismissed claims.

OpenAI evolves its structure for the nonprofit to retain control. On May 5, 2025 just days after the court filing, OpenAI announced that they would be changing the company’s structure to stay nonprofit, “We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware.” 

Further, they noted that the for-profit LLC will transition to a “Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)” similar to how X.ai and Anthropic operate, and that the nonprofit would become a large shareholder in the PBC and continue to control it, expanding the nonprofit’s resources as a result.

Case 16: April 30, 2024, Daily News Lp Et Al v. Microsoft Corporation, Openai Inc.

Case Details:

• Date: April 30, 2024
• Court: Federal District Court in Manhattan
• Case No.: 1:24-cv-03285
• Complaint Filed: April 30, 2024
• Nature of Action: Copyright Infringement

Parties:

• Plaintiffs: Daily News LP and other affiliated newspapers under Alden Global Inc. (Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, etc.)
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation

Reference:

• Complaint: Access through: https://www.scribd.com/document/728080529/Daily-News-Lp-Et-Al-v-Microsoft-Corporation-Et-a-34-3285-Complaint

Nature of the Action:

This lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by Microsoft Corporation against several newspapers affiliated with Alden Global Inc. Similar to the New York Times case, the claim centers around the use of copyrighted content from these newspapers to train Microsoft's large language models (LLMs).

Claims:

The newspapers argue that Microsoft, without permission, incorporated their copyrighted content into the training data for their AI models, potentially leading to:

• Direct replication of content within the AI outputs.
• Close paraphrasing and imitation of the newspapers' writing style.

They seek to hold Microsoft liable for the unauthorized use of their work, demanding billions of dollars in damages.

Case Summary:

This case follows the lawsuit filed by The New York Times against Microsoft and OpenAI, highlighting the growing concerns among news organizations regarding the potential misuse of their content for AI training.

Key Issues:

• Fair Use: Whether Microsoft's use of copyrighted content for training AI models falls under the legal doctrine of fair use.
• Damages: Determining the appropriate value of news content used in AI training and the extent of financial compensation for past use.
• Impact on AI Development: Potential implications for the future of AI technology and the relationship between media companies and AI firms.

Potential Impact:

• Precedence: Setting a legal precedent for how courts handle copyright infringement claims related to AI training data.
• AI Development: Influencing the future development and use of AI models, potentially impacting the relationship between media companies and AI firms.
• Copyright Protection: Determining the extent to which copyrighted content can be used for AI training without legal repercussions.

Relief Sought:

• Financial compensation for billions of dollars in damages caused by the alleged copyright infringement.
• Injunction to prevent Microsoft from using the newspapers' content for further AI training and to remove existing content from their datasets.

This lawsuit closely follows the one filed by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft, highlighting the growing concerns within the news industry regarding the potential misuse of their content for AI training purposes.

Case 15: February 29, 2024, Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, and OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Francisco
• Case No.: CGC-24-612746
• Complaint Filed: February 29, 2024
• Nature of Action: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Competition Under California Business and Professions Code

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Elon Musk
• Defendant: Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

Reference: 

Complaint. Access through: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24452289-elon-musk-openai-lawsuit/?responsive=1&title=1

Nature of the Action:

Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, and President Greg Brockman for breaching their Founding Agreement to develop AI technology for the public good and not private interests. The lawsuit alleges that by shifting from a nonprofit to a for-profit model, OpenAI is guilty of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. 

Claims:

Musk’s lawsuit outlines the following claims against OpenAI:

• Violating the terms of the Founding Agreement between Musk, Altman, and Brockman to make their technology open source and OpenAI itself a nonprofit organization.
• Misleading donors about their mission and nonprofit status.
• Not upholding their fiduciary obligations.
• Engaging in unfair competition under California law by misleading donors about use of funds.

Case Summary:

As a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015 (source and source), Musk may have all kinds of motivations for filing this lawsuit against the company. Specifically, he has been vocal about the risks associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) (source).

Key Issues:

• Breach of Contract: Did OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit to a for-profit model violate their initial agreement with Musk?
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Did OpenAI and its representatives mislead donors and misuse their funds by prioritizing private interests over public ones?
• Promissory Estoppel: Was OpenAI as a nonprofit what led Musk to donate funds, and did going back on their word impact him negatively?
• Unfair Competition: Did OpenAI violate the California Business and Professions Code by misleading donors about its shift from nonprofit to for-profit activities?

Potential Impact:

• Accountability for Nonprofits: A win for Musk could reinforce the importance of keeping promises to donors, especially when organizations switch from nonprofit to for-profit models.
• Transparency for AI Organizations: OpenAI and other AI companies may need to provide more transparency on how they use funds, especially how they align with their mission.
• Influence on Donor Confidence: A legal precedent could be set here to put safeguards in place to prevent misleading donors and misusing their funds.
• OpenAI’s Operations: If OpenAI has to return donor funds and and/or limit or even eliminate for-profit activities, the lack of money could affect their whole operation.

Relief Sought:

• A court order requiring OpenAI to continue the “practice of making AI research and technology developed atOpenAI available to the public.”
• Monetary relief, which is described in the case as, “an award of restitution and/or disgorgement of any and all monies received by Defendants while they engaged in the unfair and improper practices.”
• A transparent look into the accounting of how OpenAI used all donor funds

Case Status:

Withdrawn. On June 11, Musk’s attorneys moved to dismiss this lawsuit without reason. However, they chose to dismiss the case without prejudice, enabling him to refile. He did just that on August 5, 2024.

Case 14: February 28, 2024, The Intercept Media v. OpenAI and Microsoft

Case Details

• Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York
• Case No.: 1:24-cv-01515
• Complaint Filed: February 28, 2024
• Nature of Action: DMCA Violation

Parties:

• Plaintiff: The Intercept Media Inc
• Defendant: OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI Group, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and Microsoft Corporation

Reference:

• Complaint. Access through: https://www.loevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Intercept-v.-OpenAI-Complaint-Filed.pdf

Nature of the Action:

This complaint alleges that OpenAI, its affiliates, and Microsoft violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing or altering copyright management information from The Intercept’s articles. They further claim that by doing so, OpenAI and Microsoft enabled copyright infringement by OpenAI users — whether the users themselves realized it or not.

Claims:

The Intercept’s major claims against OpenAI and Microsoft are as follows:

• Violating the DMCA by removing or changing copyright management information on The Intercept’s articles, such as author names, titles, terms of use, etc.
• By removing copyright information, making it easier for users to share or publish AI content that violates the plaintiff’s copyrights.
• Not licensing The Intercept’s content even though OpenAI has entered into licensing agreements with other publishers like the Associated Press.

The Raw Story and AlterNet filed a similar suit on the same day (read Case 13 in this article for more details). 

Case Summary:

Though other news organizations have filed copyright infringement lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft, The Intercept claims that the defendants violated the DMCA by removing their copyright information. This makes it similar to Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit filed on the same day by the same law firm. 

However, a key difference between the two lawsuits is that The Intercept names both OpenAI and Microsoft as defendants, while Raw Story and AlterNet only list OpenAI.

Key Issues:

• Removal of Copyright Management Information: If OpenAI and Microsoft violated the DMCA by knowingly removing copyright details from The Intercept’s original works to conceal copyright infringement and avoid violations.
• Facilitation of Copyright Infringement: Did removing copyright information enable AI model users to commit further infringement by sharing or publishing relevant AI-generated text?
• Fair Licensing Practices: Since the defendants entered into licensing agreements with other publishers, this brings up questions surrounding fair and selective licensing practices. Why not license their content but license others?

Potential Impact:

• Enhanced Protections for Copyright Management Information: If the plaintiffs win, it could set a legal precedent ensuring that removal of copyright details for AI training is against the law.
• Changes to AI Development: AI developers could face increased costs if licensing becomes mandatory for all copyrighted materials, which would likely affect how they train their models.
• Increased Accountability Surrounding Data Use: Companies may need to start being more transparent about the data they use for AI training.
• Attribution for AI-Generated Outputs: Developers may need to figure out a way to ensure that AI outputs respect copyright laws

Relief Sought:

• The Intercept wants either statutory damages or the total of their damages plus the defendant’s profits.
• A court order requiring OpenAI and Microsoft to remove any of the plaintiff’s copyrighted materials missing the copyright details from their AI training datasets and anywhere else they may have them stored.
• Reimbursement for attorney fees and other lawsuit-relevant costs.

Like many other plaintiffs on this list, The Intercept wants OpenAI and Microsoft to stop the unauthorized use of their copyrighted works and to secure financial compensation for their previous violations.

Case 13: February 28, 2024, Raw Story Media, Inc. and Alternet Media Inc. v. OpenAI

Case Details

• Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York
• Case No.: 1:24-cv-0154
• Complaint Filed: February 28, 2024
• Nature of Action: DMCA Violation

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Raw Story Media, Inc. and AlterNet Media, Inc.
• Defendant: OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI Group, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC

Reference: 

Complaint. Access through: https://www.loevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Raw-Story-v.-OpenAI-Complaint-Filed.pdf

Nature of the Action:

Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit alleges that OpenAI violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing copyright management information from their original, copyrighted works and using the altered versions to train their AI models without permission. 

Claims:

Raw Story and AlterNet’s major claims against OpenAI in this case include:

• Violating the DMCA by intentionally removing copyright details such as author names, titles, and copyright notices from the plaintiff’s works
• By removing this information, enabling ChatGPT users to unknowingly participate in copyright infringement when sharing or copying AI-generated outputs based on the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works
• Not licensing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content, though OpenAI has entered into licensing agreements with other publishers in the past

Case Summary:

Although similar cases against OpenAI focus on copyright infringement, Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit is all about DMCA violations. It’s like The Intercept’s lawsuit filed by the same law firm on the same date, also accusing OpenAI of DMCA violations, failure to enter into licensing agreements, and facilitating user copyright infringement.

The most notable difference between the two cases is that The Intercept included both Microsoft and OpenAI as defendants, while Raw Story and AlterNet suit only named OpenAI.

Key Issues:

• DMCA Violations: Did OpenAI’s alleged removal of copyright management information from the plaintiffs’ works violate the DMCA?
• Facilitation of Copyright Infringement: If OpenAI encouraged or enabled ChatGPT users to unknowingly infringe by removing copyright details from the plaintiff’s original works
• Unfair Licensing Practices: Whether OpenAI is guilty of unfair licensing practices by entering into licensing agreements with some publishers but not others for similar works

Potential Impact:

• Enhanced Protections for Content Creators: If the plaintiffs win, journalists and other creators may receive stronger protections to help them prevent the unauthorized use of their work by AI companies.
• Changes to AI Training Practices: AI developers may need to be more transparent about their data use, enter into licensing agreements, and/or create new training datasets and systems, which could influence their entire business model.
• Attribution for AI-Generated Content: If OpenAI is found guilty of facilitating infringement, AI-generated outputs may require some kind of attribution to comply with copyright laws.

Relief Sought:

• Raw Story and AlterNet want statutory damages or the total of their actual damages plus OpenAI’s profits.
• A court order requiring the removal of all of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works missing the correct copyright management information from OpenAI’s training datasets and anywhere else they’re stored.
• Any attorney fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.

Case Status:

Dismissed. On November 7, 2024, a New York federal judge dismissed Raw Story and Alternet’s lawsuit against OpenAI. Judge McMahon ruled that the plaintiffs lacked a real injury here, and couldn’t prove any adverse effects. Additional reading via Bloomberg Law.

Case 12: December 27, 2023, The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, Openai Inc.

• Federal District Court in Manhattan.
• Case No. 1:23-cv-11195.
• Complaint Filed: Dec. 27, 2023.
• Copyright Infringement.
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: The New York Times Company.
• Defendant: Microsoft Corporation, Openai Inc., Openai LLC, Openai Global LLC.
• Reference: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec2023.pdf

Nature of the Action

Copyright Infringement.

The New York Times Company has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its investor, the technology giant, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that the companies used millions of the newspaper's articles without permission to train their artificial intelligence models, which include the popular AI platform ChatGPT and the AI platform now known as Copilot.

Claims

The New York Times claims that OpenAI and its AI models, which are powered by large language models (LLMs), have generated output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.

The newspaper argues that the unlawful use of its work to create AI models infringes on its copyright and seeks to hold the companies responsible for billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages.

Case Summary

The New York Times is the first major media company to sue artificial intelligence companies for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI and its investor, the technology giant, have used millions of the newspaper's articles without permission to train their AI models, which have been used to generate content that closely resembles the Times' work.

Key Issues

The key issues in this case include:

• Whether the use of copyrighted content to train AI models constitutes fair use, as claimed by OpenAI and its investors.
• The value of news content in the context of AI-generated content and potential damages for previous use.
• The potential impact of the lawsuit on the future of AI technology and the relationship between media companies and AI firms.

Potential Impact

• The potential impact of this lawsuit includes:Setting a precedent for how courts define the value of news content and what the damages are for previous use.
• Influencing the future of AI technology and the relationship between media companies and AI firms.
• Determining the extent to which AI models can use copyrighted content without facing legal consequences.

Relief Sought

The New York Times seeks to hold OpenAI and its investors responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages caused by the unlawful use of its work to create AI models

The newspaper also asks the court to prevent them from training their AI models using its work and to remove its work from their datasets.

Case 11: November 21, 2023, Sancton v. OpenAI Inc. et al

• United States District Court, Southern District of New York
• Case No. 1:23-cv-10211
• Complaint Filed: November 21, 2023
• Copyright Infringement
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: Julian Sancton, et al.
• Defendant: OpenAI Inc., Microsoft Corporation, et al.
• Reference: https://www.reuters.com/legal/openai-microsoft-hit-with-new-author-copyright-lawsuit-over-ai-training-2023-11-21/

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims‍

The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft infringed their copyrights by using their works to train their ChatGPT AI language model. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works.

‍Case Summary‍

On November 21, 2023, Julian Sancton and other writers filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft infringed their copyrights by using their works to train their ChatGPT AI language model.

The plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of their works is not a fair use because it is not transformative. They also argue that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of their works is commercial because ChatGPT is a commercial product.OpenAI and Microsoft have denied the allegations in the lawsuit.

The companies have argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI and Microsoft have also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.

The case is still in its early stages, and it is too early to say how it will be resolved. However, the case has raised important questions about the copyright implications of training large language models on copyrighted data.

‍Key Issues

• Whether the use of copyrighted works to train a large language model is a fair use.
• Whether the use of a large language model to generate creative content is a copyright infringement.
• The scope of copyright protection for large language models.

Potential Impact‍

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of the plaintiffs' works is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted data to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.
On the other hand, if the court finds that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of the plaintiffs' works is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted data to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.

‍Relief Sought‍

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop OpenAI and Microsoft from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI and Microsoft have made from using their works without permission.

Case 10: September 19, 2023, Authors Guild et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al

• United States District Court, Southern District of New York
• Case No. 1:2023-cv-08292
• Complaint Filed: September 19, 2023
• Copyright Infringement
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: Authors Guild, David Baldacci
• Defendant: OpenAI Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP LLC
• Reference:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv08292/606655

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims

The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their works to train its ChatGPT AI language model. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works.

Case Summary:

On September 19, 2023, the Authors Guild and 17 authors filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their works to train its ChatGPT AI language model.

The plaintiffs argue that OpenAI's use of their works is not a fair use because it is not transformative. They also argue that OpenAI's use of their works is commercial because ChatGPT is a commercial product.

OpenAI has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The company has argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI has also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.

The case is still in its early stages, and it is too early to say how it will be resolved. However, the case has raised important questions about the copyright implications of training large language models on copyrighted data.

Key Issues:

• Whether the use of copyrighted works to train a large language model is a fair use.
• Whether the use of a large language model to generate creative content is a copyright infringement.
• The scope of copyright protection for large language models.

Potential Impact:

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' works is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted data to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.

On the other hand, if the court finds that OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' works is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted data to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop OpenAI from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI has made from using their works without permission.

Case 9: Sept. 8, 2023, Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc.

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 3:2023-cv-04625
• Complaint Filed: Sept. 8, 2023
• Copyright Infringement
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: Michael Chabon
• Defendant: OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, L.P
• Reference:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv04625/417988

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants infringed their copyrights by creating and distributing a dataset that contains substantial portions of their copyrighted works.

Summary

Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 8, 2023. The plaintiffs are Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Chabon and several other writers, including George R.R Martin, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman. The defendant is OpenAI, Inc., the developer of the ChatGPT AI language generator.

The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI copied their copyrighted works without permission to train ChatGPT. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to stop OpenAI from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI has made from using their works without permission.

OpenAI has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The company has argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI has also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.

Relief Sought 

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop the defendants from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that the defendants have made from using their works without permission.

Case 8: August 4, 2023, OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc.

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 3:2023-cv-03918
• Complaint Filed: August 4, 2023
• Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: OPENAI, INC.
• Defendant: Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. and Guy Ravine
• Reference:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv03918/416410

Nature of the Action 

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

Claims: 

OpenAI, Inc. alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. infringed its trademark "OpenAI" by using a nearly identical trademark "Open AI" on its website and in its marketing materials. OpenAI also alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence engaged in unfair competition by creating a fraudulent website to mislead the USPTO into believing that it was using the "Open AI" mark in commerce.

Summary

OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. is a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by OpenAI, Inc., the developer of ChatGPT and Dall-E, against Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., an unaffiliated company. OpenAI alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence is infringing on its trademark by using a nearly-identical name and logo, and by creating a fraudulent website to mislead the USPTO into believing that it is using the mark in commerce.

OpenAI filed the lawsuit on August 4, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is still ongoing, and no trial date has been set.

In its complaint, OpenAI alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence has caused it "irreparable harm" by damaging its reputation and goodwill, and by confusing consumers into believing that the two companies are affiliated. OpenAI is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Open Artificial Intelligence from using the mark, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.

Open Artificial Intelligence has not yet filed a response to the complaint.

The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the tech industry, as it raises questions about the use of generic terms in trademarks. The term "artificial intelligence" is a descriptive term that is used by many companies in the tech industry. It is unclear whether OpenAI will be able to successfully assert trademark rights in the term "Open AI," given that other companies are also using the term in a descriptive manner.

Relief Sought

OpenAI seeks injunctive relief to stop Open Artificial Intelligence from using the "Open AI" trademark and website, as well as damages for the profits that Open Artificial Intelligence has made from infringing on OpenAI's trademark and engaging in unfair competition.

Case 7: November 10, 2022, Doe 3 et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 4:2022-cv-07074
• Complaint Filed: November 10, 2022
• Breach of Contract
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: J. Doe 3 and J. Doe 4
• Defendant: GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P.
• Reference:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2022cv07074/403693

Nature of the Action

Breach of Contract

Claims:

The plaintiffs allege that GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, P.L. and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their code.

Case Summary:

On November 10, 2022, a group of programmers filed a lawsuit against GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, P.L. and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools.

The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI violated these licenses by using their code without permission and without attribution.

The plaintiffs also allege that GitHub and OpenAI engaged in unfair competition by using their code to create a competitive advantage for their own products. The plaintiffs argue that GitHub and OpenAI's use of their code gives them a head start in the development of new AI coding tools.

GitHub, Microsoft, OpenAI, and the other defendants have denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The companies have argued that their use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use because it is transformative. They also argue that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because their code is still available to the public.

Key Issues:

• Whether the use of copyrighted code to train a large language model is a fair use.
• Whether the use of a large language model to generate code is a copyright infringement.
• The scope of copyright protection for code.

Potential Impact

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted code to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.

On the other hand, if the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted code to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.

Relief Sought:

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop GitHub and OpenAI from using their code, as well as damages for the profits that GitHub and OpenAI have made from using their code without permission.

Case 6: November 3, 2022, DOE 1 et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 4:2022-cv-06823
• Complaint Filed: November 3, 2022
• Breach of Contract
• Parties:
• Plaintiff: J. DOE 1, J. DOE 2
• Defendant: GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P
• Reference:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2022cv06823/403220

Nature of the Action: 

Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, and Unfair Competition

Claims:

The plaintiffs allege that GitHub, Inc. and OpenAI, Inc. infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their code.

The plaintiffs also allege that GitHub and OpenAI breached their contract with the plaintiffs by using their code without permission. The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes.

The plaintiffs further allege that GitHub and OpenAI engaged in unfair competition by using the plaintiffs' code to create a competitive advantage for their own products.

Case Summary:

On November 3, 2022, a group of programmers filed a lawsuit against GitHub, Inc. and OpenAI, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools.

The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI violated these licenses by using their code without permission and without attribution.

GitHub and OpenAI have denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The companies have argued that their use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use because it is transformative. They also argue that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because their code is still available to the public.

Key Issues:

• Whether the use of copyrighted code to train a large language model is a fair use.
• Whether the use of a large language model to generate code is a copyright infringement.
• The scope of copyright protection for code.

Potential Impact:

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted code to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.

On the other hand, if the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted code to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.

Relief Sought:

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop GitHub and OpenAI from using their code, as well as damages for the profits that GitHub and OpenAI have made from using their code without permission.

Case 5: September 5, 2023, T. et al v. OpenAI LP et al

• Case No: 3:23-cv-04557
• Complaint Filed: September 5, 2023
• Class action lawsuit for breaking several privacy laws in developing OpenAI's popular chatbot ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence systems.
• Reference:https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmpjlnldzpr/OPENAI%20PRIVACY%20LAWSUIT%20complaint.pdf

Nature of the Action

Nature of the Action: This is a Class Action Lawsuit on the behalf of US Consumer Privacy and unauthorized data use. The plaintiffs are alleging that OpenAI misused their personal data from social media platforms and other sites to train its AI systems, including ChatGPT.

Claims: The primary claims in the lawsuit revolve around privacy infringements, violations of consumer rights, and the unauthorised use of personal information.

Relief Sought: The relief sought in the case includes an unspecified monetary amount for damages. Additionally, the plaintiffs are requesting that the court order the companies (OpenAI and potentially Microsoft) to implement safeguards to prevent the misuse of private data. The specific details of the relief sought may become clearer as the case progresses through the legal system.

Case 4: July 14, 2023, Walters v. OpenAI LLC 

• Case No: 1:2023-cv-03122
• Complaint Filed: July 14, 2023
• Libel Lawsuit Alleging Misinformation by OpenAI LLC
• Reference: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2023cv03122/318259

Nature of the Action

In the matter herein, the complainant, Mark Walters, hitherto referred to as the “Plaintiff,” has instituted legal proceedings. The essence of the instant action lies in the Plaintiff’s assertion of the culpability of OpenAI LLC, hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant,” for libel.

Claim

• This alleged defamation emanates from the purported dissemination of misleading information to a member of the journalistic profession, subsequently leading to the promulgation of inaccurate and erroneous news coverage pertaining to a federal lawsuit concerned with matters of civil rights.

Case 3: July 7, 2023, Silverman, et al v. OpenAI Inc.

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 3:2023-cv-03416
• Complaint Filed: July 7, 2023
• Class-Action Lawsuit Alleging Similar Copyright Infringement by OpenAI Inc.
• Reference: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv03416/415174

Claims:

• Similar to the Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad lawsuit against OpenAI, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey institute allegations against the entity responsible for the development of ChatGPT, OpenAI Inc.
  
  
• The allegations brought forth encompass claims of both direct and vicarious copyright infringement, contraventions of section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
  
  
• Unjust enrichment, breaches of the unfair competition statute under California  law and the common law, as well as acts of negligence, all of which are the subject matter of this novel legal action
  
  
• The plaintiffs and members of the certified class are authors. Copyright registrations have been duly secured by the Plaintiffs and the class members for the literary works they authored and published.
  ‍
• The unconsented utilization of their copyrighted books for the purpose of training ChatGPT transpired, without exception. This unauthorized use of copyrighted books transpired during the training stages of ChatGPT.

Nature of the Action

This class-action lawsuit is similar to the Tremblay lawsuit and is filed on behalf of three authors; Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey.

Case 2: June 28, 2023, Tremblay v. OpenAI Inc. 

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 4:2023-cv-03223
• Complaint Filed: June 28, 2023
• Class-Action Lawsuit Alleging Copyright infringement by OpenAI Inc. 
• Reference: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2023cv03223/414822

Nature of the Action

This class-action lawsuit claims that OpenaAI infringed copyright by using the author’s books without permission to train ChatGPT, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Claims

• Allegations of copyright infringement are leveled against OpenAI, with the plaintiff party contending that OpenAI deployed copyrighted materials authored by two individuals for training the ChatGPT AI model without procuring the necessary authorization.
  ‍
• The plaintiffs contend that one of the copyrighted book datasets, comprising a vast repository of titles exceeding 290,000, has been sourced from “shadow libraries” characterized by illicit dissemination methods such as torrent systems. This aspect forms the crux of the alleged copyright contravention.
  ‍
• The plaintiffs also assert that ChatGPT, in its process, omits copyright attributions in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs seek injunctive redress and pecuniary indemnities.

Case 1: June 28, 2023, PM et al v. OpenAI LP et al

• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• Case No. 3:23-cv-03199
• Complaint Filed: June 28, 2023
• COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY AND UNAUTHORIZED DATA USE
• Parties:

• Plaintiff: PM
• Defendant: OpenAI LP

• Reference: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv03199/414754

Nature of the Action

Plaintiff alleges infringement of privacy, unauthorized data use, and violation of federal and state privacy and property laws against defendant OpenAI LP.

This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and utilization of private information by Defendant OpenAI LP, a prominent actor in the field of artificial intelligence, in relation to its generative AI programs ChatGPT and DALL-E. Plaintiff asserts that OpenAI has surreptitiously accessed private data from internet users, including minors, without appropriate consent and in breach of legal norms. 

Claims

1. Unauthorized data acquisition: The plaintiff alleges that OpenAI illegally extracted private data from user interactions with its products, as well as from applications integrated with ChatGPT, without valid authorization.
   ‍
2. Violation of Privacy and Property Laws: Plaintiff contends that OpenAI’s actions contravene federal and state privacy and property laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), among others.
   ‍
3. Web scraping and violation of terms of service: The plaintiff asserts that OpenAi engaged in covert web scraping, infringing terms of service agreements and applicable laws
   ‍
4. Theft and Conversion: Plaintiff alleges that OpenAI’s actions constitute theft and conversion of private data. 

Relief sought

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief as determined by the court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the allegations against OpenAI?

OpenAI is being sued based on some similar allegations: 

• copyright infringement
• privacy violations
• libel 

What could be the potential impact of these legal actions?

These legal actions highlight the growing legal complexities surrounding AI-generated content and raises questions about the legal framework applicable to ChatGPT and emerging AI technologies. It could also be fined and also be required to change its data collection and use practices. It could also set a precedent for other lawsuits against AI companies. This could lead to stricter regulations on how AI companies collect and use data.

How are the plaintiffs seeking to address these situations?

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and other appropriate remedies as determined by the Courts.

What can individuals do to protect their privacy from AI companies?

There are a few things that individuals can do to protect their privacy from AI companies such as: 

• Opting out of data collection and tracking whenever possible
• Being aware of the privacy policies of the websites they interact with
• Being careful about what information they share online
• Using strong passwords and security practices.

What can policymakers do to protect the public from AI companies?

Policymakers can take a number of steps to protect the public from AI companies such as:

• Enacting laws that regulate how AI companies collect and use data
• Providing consumers with more control over their personal information
• Investing in research on the ethical and social implications of AI

What legal principles are being invoked in these lawsuits?

The lawsuits invoke principles related to copyright las, privacy rights, defamation and potential violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

What legal challenges are posed by AI-generated content?

AI-generated content raises complex questions about intellectual property ownership, privacy violations, liability for defamation, and the adaptability of existing legal frameworks to emerging AI technologies.

What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and how is it relevant to these lawsuits?

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a U.S copyright law that addresses issues related to digital content and copyright protection. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim that OpenAI’s actions violate the DMCA by stripping copyrighted works of their copyright notices.