We looked at all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI (ChatGPT) and listed them below as of February 2026. In addition to the relevant detail, there is commentary provided to offer context for the cases.
This list will remain updated as an easy-to-reference location for any lawsuits against OpenAI.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. None of the information below is legal advice.
OpenAI and ChatGPT Lawsuits Covered in This Article
Here are all lawsuits against OpenAI and ChatGPT, summarized in this article (as of February, 2026):
- MDL No. 3143 (In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation), April 3, 2025
- Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al., June 13, 2025
- Tremblay v. OpenAI Inc. - June 28, 2023.
- Silverman et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al., July 7, 2023
- Chabon v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., September 8, 2023
- Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., September 19, 2023
- Alter et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. and Microsoft (previously Sancton v. OpenAI Inc. et al. and Microsoft), November 21, 2023
- Basbanes et al. v. Microsoft and OpenAI Inc. et al., January 5, 2024
- Millette v. OpenAI Inc. et al. (aka Petryazhna v. OpenAI Inc. et al.), April 7, 2025
- The New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI Inc. et. al., December 27, 2023
- Raw Story Media Inc. et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., February 28, 2024
- The Intercept Media Inc. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. and Microsoft, February 28, 2024
- Daily News LP et al. v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI Inc. et. al., April 30, 2024
- The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. and Microsoft Corporation, June 27, 2024
- Ziff Davis Inc. et. al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., April 24, 2025
- Denial et al. v. OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft Corporation et al., June 30, 2025
- California Newspapers Partnership et al. v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI et al., November 26, 2025
- US News & World Report v. OpenAI et al., November 26, 2025
- Toronto Star Newspapers Limited et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. - November 28, 2024
- ANI v. OpenAI - November 19, 2024
- Musk v. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI - August 5, 2024
- Musk v. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI - February 29, 2024
- A.S. v OpenAI LP et. al., February 27, 2024
- OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. - August 4, 2023
- T. et al. v. OpenAI LP et al. - September 5, 2023
- Walters v. OpenAI LLC - July 14, 2023
- PM et al. v. OpenAI LP et al. - June 28, 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
Check out the full list of cases in this article, in the AirTable below:
Maintain AI transparency with Originality.ai’s patented suite of content quality tools, including AI detection, plagiarism checking, and fact checking.
MDL No. 3143 (In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation), April 3, 2025
As copyright lawsuits began piling up against OpenAI, it became clear that many of them revolved around the same core questions about how copyrighted works were used to train large language models. Due to these similarities, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized them under MDL No. 3143, formally titled In re OpenAI Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation.
The MDL brings together lawsuits from several authors, news publishers, and content creators for coordinated pretrial handling — it does not merge them into a single case. Each lawsuit keeps its own claims and plaintiffs unless the parties choose to proceed through a consolidated complaint.
At the time of the April 3, 2025, transfer order, twelve cases were centralized in this way, with the possibility that additional related actions could be coordinated as the litigation continued. Within the MDL, many of the book-author claims moved forward through a consolidated complaint (see Baldacci et al. v OpenAI below), although both the author and news-publisher cases continued separately.
An MDL like this could have a major impact. If the Court finds that OpenAI did indeed commit copyright infringement, then copying copyrighted books, news articles, and other written works for AI training may stop becoming a gray area. It would be clearer that this kind of large-scale copying for model development could potentially have legal impacts and is not just a technical step in the process.
And naturally, that could force some kind of structural change for AI companies relying on similar training practices. For instance, model development may start to require licensing decisions upfront, and existing models may need to be overhauled in order to be compliant.
In other words, it could very well change how AI systems are built and deployed in general.
MDL Framework Details
- Court: US District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No./Court File No.: 1:25-md-03143
- JPML Transfer Order Issued: April 3, 2025
- Date Filed: April 11, 2025
- Nature of Action: Multidistrict litigation (MDL) coordinating related copyright infringement actions for pretrial proceedings only.
Quick Overview of Cases Centralized in MDL No. 3143
- From the initial April 3, 2025, transfer order:
- Tremblay et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- Silverman et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- Chabon et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- Millette v. OpenAI Inc. et al
- Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- Alter et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al.
- Basbanes et al. v. Microsoft Corporation et al.
- Raw Story Media Inc. et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.
- The Intercept Media Inc. v. OpenAI et al.
- Daily News LP et al. v. Microsoft Corporation et al.
- The Center for Investigative Reporting v OpenAI Inc. et al.
- Additional actions that followed:
- Ziff Davis et al. v. OpenAI et al.
- Denial et al. v. OpenAI et al.
- California Newspapers Partnership et al. v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI et. al.
- U.S. News & World Report, L.P. v. OpenAI, Inc. et. al.
- Reference:
Case Status
Below is a breakdown of the key complaints and cases involved in MDL No. 3143, beginning with the authors’ consolidated class action complaint, continuing with individual author cases that feed into or sit alongside the complaint, and ending with publisher and adjacent cases.
Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI Inc et al., June 13, 2025
Although news publisher cases had also been transferred into MDL No. 3143, the Court ordered many of the author plaintiffs to file a consolidated class action complaint, now known as Baldacci et al. v. OpenAI et al.
Instead of continuing to develop the same allegations through multiple lawsuits, this consolidated complaint builds on the Authors Guild case (see below for more details) and brought together the related author claims about how OpenAI and Microsoft played roles in copying and using the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works without permission to train and operate their AI models, and benefited from it.
By shifting these individual claims into one unified complaint, this action not only made it easier for the Court to address the overlapping allegations in general, but it also framed these copyright infringement claims as more of an industry-wide concern for authors.
Note that although this consolidated class action complaint now serves as the main vehicle for advancing certain author-related copyright claims from individual lawsuits within the MDL, it doesn’t replace the earlier author lawsuits that were transferred into it. Those cases are still pending as separate actions, which we’ll get into further below.
Case Details
- Court: US District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No./Court File No.: 1:25-md-03143
- Consolidated Class Action Complaint Filed: June 13, 2025
- Nature of Action: Consolidated author copyright infringement claims over AI training and use of books (MDL No. 3143)
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): George R.R. Martin, David Baldacci, Michael Connelly, Jonathan Franzen, Andrew Sean Greer, David Henry Hwang, Christopher Golden, Matthew Klam, Jodi Picoult, Sylvia Day, Stacy Schiff, James Shapiro, Taylor Branch, John Grisham, The Authors Guild, Belfry Holdings, Inc., Columbus Rose, Ltd., Hieronymus, Inc., Daring Greatly Corporation, Gattopardo, LLC, Sylvia Day LLC, and Wo & Shade LLC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated authors
- Defendant(s): OpenAI Inc., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, and Microsoft Corporation
- Claim(s):
- Not only did OpenAI and Microsoft copy their books without permission, but they did so from illegal shadow libraries and used those reproductions to train their large language models.
- OpenAI and Microsoft should both be held accountable based on their alleged role in controlling, developing, releasing, and profiting from the AI models trained on their copyrighted books.
- Relief Sought:
- An injunction prohibiting defendants from reproducing or using plaintiffs’ copyrighted works without authorization, including for the training or operation of generative AI models.
- Class certification, disgorgement, and financial relief, including actual damages, any profits the defendants may have earned from the alleged infringement, and, if permitted, statutory damages for each infringed work.
- Attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and anything else the court considers appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is proceeding as the author plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation). See docket for latest updates.
The sections below outline each of the author suits transferred into the MDL, in chronological order.
Tremblay v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., June 28, 2023
Years before a consolidated complaint was even on the table, Tremblay marked the first major author lawsuit filed against OpenAI. Like Baldacci, this author complaint claimed that OpenAI used their books without permission to build and run its models, but unlike Baldacci, it didn’t stop there.
Tremblay also accused OpenAI of stripping away copyright management information from their works, and framed their overall conduct as unfair business behavior and careless handling of the authors’ work. That said, the majority of these claims ended up being dismissed with leave to amend. Only elements of the unfair competition claim still moved forward.
What’s interesting is that Tremblay wasn’t even the only case to share this fate. In that same dismissal order, the Court directed Tremblay to be consolidated with two other cases, Silverman and Chabon, and the consolidated amended complaint that followed narrowed the case down to just two claims: direct copyright infringement and unfair competition.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Original Case No/Court File No.: 3:23-cv-03223
- MDL Member Case No.: 1:25-cv-03482
- Class Action Complaint Filed: June 28, 2023
- Nature of Action: Authors allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models, with additional claims over removal of copyright management information and unfair competition.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI L.P., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I L.P., OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI copied and used the authors’ books without permission to train its GPT models, removed copyright management information from them, and used them to create derivative works based on their books.
- That OpenAI did all of this without taking reasonable care to protect the authors’ work and unjustly benefited from this work.
- OpenAI engaged in unlawful business practices because consumers are likely to be deceived by their actions.
- Relief Sought:
- Class action certification, restitution of profits, an injunction preventing further unauthorized use of their works, attorney’s fees, and any other relief the court finds appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is now part of MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). While overlapping claims are now being advanced through the Baldacci consolidated class action complaint, this case continues as a separate member action within the MDL. See docket above for latest updates.
Silverman et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., July 7, 2023
With a similar set of author-initiated claims covering copyright infringement, it’s easy to see why the Court ordered Silverman, Tremblay, and Chabon to file a consolidated amended complaint at the same time it dismissed several of their allegations.
Still, Silverman’s timing matters. Filed just days after Tremblay, Silverman was an early sign that author cases regarding OpenAI’s unauthorized use of copyrighted works in training AI models weren’t going to be a one-off complaint.
In fact, they were going to start stacking up.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Original Case No/Court File No.: 3:23-cv-03416
- MDL Member Case No.: 1:25-cv-03483
- Class Action Complaint Filed: July 7, 2023
- Nature of Action: Authors allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models, with additional claims over the removal of copyright management information and unfair competition.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI L.P., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I L.P., OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI trained its GPT models on the authors’ books without permission and knowingly did not include copyright-management information in the process.
- Since the models use the authors’ works to function, OpenAI’s models are themselves infringing derivative works.
- OpenAI handled the authors’ material carelessly, impacted their livelihoods, and benefited financially at their expense.
- OpenAI engaged in unlawful business practices because consumers are likely to be deceived by these actions.
- Relief Sought:
- Monetary damages, anything the defendants earned by allegedly misusing their books, an injunction stopping them from any further unauthorized use of their works, attorneys’ fees, and anything else the court finds appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is now part of MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). While many overlapping claims are now being advanced through the Baldacci consolidated class action complaint, this case continues as a separate member action within the MDL. See docket for latest updates.
Chabon v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., September 8, 2023
Chabon had been quickly flagged as a related action and consolidated with the Tremblay and Silverman suits due to yet another set of familiar copyright-centered allegations (and others that had been similarly dismissed).
Since this case really is similar, the main thing that really stands out about Chabon is its mention of the award-winning nature of its author plaintiffs.
By pointing out that this complaint had Pulitzer Prize, Peabody Award, and Guggenheim Fellowship recipients in the mix, the Chabon complaint almost seems to emphasize the high commercial and artistic value of the plaintiffs’ work.
It culd be their way of suggesting that the unauthorized AI training especially devalues their work and is even more of a threat to their revenue streams.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division
- Case No/Court File No.: 1:25-cv-03291 (originally filed under 3:23-cv-04625)
- Class Action Complaint Filed: September 8, 2023
- Nature of Action: Award-winning authors allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models, with additional claims over the removal of copyright management information and unfair competition.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Michael Chabon, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI L.P., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I L.P., OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC
- Claim(s):
- That OpenAI likely deceived both the public and the authors due to unfair business practices by using the authors’ copyrighted books to train its GPT models without permission, and took out or changed the copyright management information in the process, resulting in infringing derivative works created by ChatGPT’s outputs
- Since the authors didn’t receive credit or compensation for their work, only OpenAI benefited.
- Relief Sought:
- Restitution of profits, injunctive relief to stop them from continuing the unauthorized use, attorneys’ fees, and any additional relief the court considers just.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is now part of MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). While overlapping claims are now being advanced through the Baldacci consolidated class action complaint, this case continues as a separate member action within the MDL. See docket above for latest updates.
Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., September 19, 2023
After the early author cases started piling up, The Authors Guild lawsuit saw even more authors come together against OpenAI. Filed as a class action (and eventually becoming the basis for the author consolidated complaint in the MDL), the Guild and prominent fiction authors entered into a suit together focused strictly on copyright claims related to AI training.
In addition to direct and vicarious infringement, this suit even included contributory infringement.
One notable similarity to the trio of cases (Tremblay, Chabon, and Silverman) was its consolidation before Baldacci.
The Authors Guild and Alter cases had been ordered to consolidate and even filed an amended complaint together, and they were both later consolidated again with the Basbanes case for pretrial purposes.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:23-cv-08292
- Class Action Complaint Filed: September 19, 2023
- Nature of Action: Authors allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Authors Guild, David Baldacci, Mary Bly, Sylvia Day, Elin Hilderbrand, Christina Baker Kline, Maya Shanbhag Lang, Victor Lavalle, Douglas Preston, Roxana Robinson, George Saunders, Scott Turow, Rachel Vail, John Grisham, Michael Connelly, Jodi Picoult, George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP., OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, OAI Corporation LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI built and trained its GPT models using the authors’ books without permission, and released AI systems powered by these works without offering the authors any credit or compensation.
- Defendants could directly control the infringement and have a direct financial interest in it, and not only knew or had reason to know about the infringement, but also contributed to and assisted in it
- Relief Sought:
- Damages for the alleged misuse of the plaintiffs’ books, profits OpenAI may have earned that were attributable to the infringement, an injunction to stop further unlicensed use of their works, payment of attorneys’ fees, and whatever else the court thinks is appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is now part of MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). While overlapping claims are being pursued through the Baldacci consolidated class action complaint, this case remains a separate action within the MDL. See docket for latest updates.
Alter et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. and Microsoft (previously Sancton v. OpenAI Inc. et al. and Microsoft), November 21, 2023
The case may have started out as Sancton v. OpenAI Inc. et al., but it didn’t stay that way for long. It’s now commonly referred to as the Alter case after the complaint had been amended to add Jonathan Alter and other nonfiction authors as lead plaintiffs.
Yes, now nonfiction authors were also calling out OpenAI and even Microsoft for copyright infringement, and you could say this adds a new angle to these claims.
Since nonfiction books are meant to explain things clearly and directly to the average reader, like ChatGPT, it could be argued that this makes it even more likely that the model’s outputs could overlap with or even substitute for the original work.
It’s also worth noting that Alter ended up filing an amended consolidated complaint with Authors Guild that added vicarious infringement to the list of claims. Both cases had also later been consolidated with Basbanes for pretrial purposes.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:23-cv-10211
- Complaint Filed: November 21, 2023
- Nature of Action: Nonfiction authors allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models.
Quick Overview of the Original Case (Sancton v. OpenAI)
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Julian Sancton (with Jonathan Alter, Kai Bird, Taylor Branch, Rich Cohen, Eugene Linden, Daniel Okrent, Hampton Sides, Stacy Schiff, James Shapiro, Jia Tolentino, and Simon Winchester eventually added to the amended complaint), on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and Microsoft Corporation
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI and Microsoft copied and used copyrighted nonfiction books without authorization to train LLMs, including GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4, infringing the authors’ exclusive rights under US Copyright Law.
- Microsoft and OpenAI’s entities knowingly contributed to that infringement through their involvement in developing, deploying, and commercializing the AI models.
- OpenAI also contributed because it directly and indirectly controls the entities responsible for infringement.
- Relief Sought:
- Damages for allegedly using the plaintiffs’ nonfiction books without permission, an injunction stopping further unlicensed use, attorney’s fees, and whatever other relief the court sees fit.
Case Status
Ongoing. This action is now part of MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). While overlapping claims are being pursued through the Baldacci consolidated class action complaint, this case remains a separate action within the MDL. See docket for latest updates.
Basbanes et al. v. Microsoft and OpenAI Inc. et al., January 5, 2024
Although the plaintiffs are also authors and it had been originally consolidated with the Authors Guild and Alter cases for pretrial purposes, the Basbanes case hadn’t originally been included in the consolidated Baldacci complaint. It ended up being marked as stayed (or handled separately) “pending a ruling on class certification or summary judgment in the consolidated class action”.
The Basbanes complaint was brought forth by two nonfiction journalists, and built on the angle introduced in Alter: that deeply researched, fact-driven books are especially vulnerable to being reproduced by LLMs when copied and used for AI training.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:24-cv-00084
- Complaint Filed: January 5, 2024
- Nature of Action: Nonfiction journalists allege OpenAI copied and used their books without permission to train and operate its AI models.
Quick Overview of the Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Nicholas A. Basbanes and Nicholas Ngagoyeanes (professionally known as Nicholas Gage), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
- Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, and OpenAI Holdings, LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI and Microsoft copied and used copyrighted nonfiction books without authorization to train and power their LLMs.
- Microsoft controlled, directed, profited from, contributed to, and assisted in infringement by supporting model training through its infrastructure, financial, and technical involvement.
- OpenAI also controlled, directed, profited from, contributed to, and directly assisted in infringement.
- Relief Sought:
- An injunction barring the defendants from using copyrighted works to train their LLMs without authorization, monetary relief (including actual damages, defendants’ profits, or statutory damages), and attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and anything else the court deems proper.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket for latest updates.
Millette v OpenAI Inc. et. al. (aka Petryazhna v. OpenAI Inc et. al.), August 2, 2024
Like the Basbanes case, Millette had been another related suit that had originally been excluded from the Baldacci consolidated complaint. It was a little different from the other author cases, as the Millette complaint had been filed on behalf of YouTube creators and users.
Millette focused on the issue of unfair competition and unjust enrichment.
After the first amended complaint added another plaintiff, Ruslana Petryazhna, trimmed back the defendant list, added copyright infringement, the second amended complaint removed Millette entirely, and plaintiff Petryazhna only alleges direct copyright infringement. So, the Court now refers to it as the Petryazhna action in the MDL.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No/Court File No.: 5:24-cv-04710 (originally filed under 3:24-cv-04710)
- MDL Member Case No.: 1:25-cv-03297
- Complaint Filed: August 2, 2024
- Nature of Action: YouTube creator alleges that OpenAI copied and used transcripts of his videos to build and operate its AI models without permission, framing it as unfair competition and unjust enrichment.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): David Millette, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc. and OpenAI OpCo, LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI engaged in unfair business practices by covertly transcribing millions of YouTube users’ videos without permission and using those transcriptions to develop and improve its AI models, unjustly enriching themselves at the plaintiff’s and class members’ expense.
- Relief Sought:
- Class certification, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, an order of restitution and other equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket for latest updates.
The New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI Inc. et. al., December 27, 2023
The New York Times case is the earliest one in the MDL that had been put forth by a major news publisher. Instead of simply focusing on whether its copyrighted works were used during training, the Times complaint includes detailed examples of how these trained models are deployed in real products.
It shows how both ChatGPT and Bing Chat can generate responses that pull verbatim from or closely mimic the Times’ materials, and even AI hallucinations that had been falsely attributed to the publisher.
Of course, other complaints have also included some kind of evidence to back up their claims. But this is the first time a major news publisher steps in and lays out what these alleged actions from OpenAI and Microsoft look like for a live newsroom. It shows how AI tools interact with current reporting, their effect on readers, and why that matters for a publisher that relies on ongoing news production.
It’s important to note that, before the MDL transfer, some of the Times’s claims ended up being dismissed. In a joint order, after the case had been consolidated with the Daily News and then also the Center for Investigative Reporting cases, the Court dismissed the unfair competition by misappropriation claim with prejudice, as well as all of the DMCA claims without prejudice.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:23-cv-11195
- Complaint Filed: December 27, 2023
- Nature of Action: News publishers allege OpenAI copied and used their content without permission to train and operate its AI models, with additional claims over removal of copyright management information and trademark dilution.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): The New York Times Company
- Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI Opco LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation LLC, and OpenAI Holdings LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI copied millions of The New York Times’ copyrighted works without permission to train its GPT models, and stored, processed, and reproduced these trained GPT models on Microsoft’s supercomputing platform.
- Microsoft controlled, directed, and profited from the infringement by providing the supercomputing platform and incorporating the infringing GPT models into Bing Chat.
- OpenAI also controlled, directed, profited from, and contributed to the infringement.
- Defendants’ products generate outputs that paraphrase or entirely reproduce the Times’ content, which could unfairly compete with and therefore divert readers and revenue.
- Defendants removed copyright management information from the Times’s during training and output generation.
- Trademark dilution based on AI systems generating inaccurate content falsely attributed to the Times.
- Relief Sought:
- Permanently stopping the infringing actions, destruction of all GPT or other LLM models and training sets that include the Times’ works.
- Costs, expenses, and attorney fees, statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief deemed by the Court.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket for latest updates.
Raw Story Media Inc. et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., February 28, 2024
After The New York Times, it only took a few months for the next news publisher-related lawsuit to be filed against OpenAI. Raw Story Media and AlterNet’s case focuses on DMCA violations.
Similar to cases that had come before it, it alleges that OpenAI stripped copyright management information from its journalism to use in its training datasets (this would allow ChatGPT to reproduce news content without attribution).
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:24-cv-01514
- Complaint Filed: February 28, 2024
- Nature of Action: Digital news publisher alleges OpenAI removed copyright management information from its articles and used those articles to train its AI models without consent.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Raw Story Media, Inc. and AlterNet Media, Inc.
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI GP, LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI copied and included the plaintiffs’ journalism in ChatGPT training datasets after knowingly removing associated copyright management information.
- OpenAI had reason to know that removing this information could conceal copyright infringement by ChatGPT and its users.
- Relief Sought:
- Either statutory damages or the total of plaintiffs’ damages and defendants’ profits, an injunction requiring the defendants to remove from their training sets and any other repositories all copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works that are missing their copyright management information, and attorney fees and costs.
Case Status
Dismissed. Although this action had been dismissed, it is still included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation). See the docket for further details.
The Intercept Media Inc. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al. and Microsoft, February 28, 2024
Similar to the Raw Story Media case, The Intercept’s complaint claims OpenAI removed attribution and other copyright management information (and distributed those works to Microsoft) from its journalism. It also structures its case around a claim against Microsoft tied to training. Intercept Media Inc. then amended the complaint in June, 2024.
Prior to MDL consolidation, the court ended up dismissing all claims against Microsoft. For the claims against OpenAI, the distribution claim was dismissed, while the removal of copyright management information was permitted to proceed.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No./MDL Member Case No.: 1:24-cv-01515
- Complaint Filed: February 28, 2024
- Nature of Action: Digital news publisher alleges OpenAI removed copyright management information from its articles, used those articles to train its AI models, and also shared them with Microsoft.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): The Intercept Media, Inc.
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and Microsoft Corporation
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI allegedly removed copyright management information from The Intercept’s journalism before including the material in ChatGPT’s datasets, allowing ChatGPT and related products to generate responses that appear uncopyrighted.
- Microsoft did the same, but also used these works in Bing AI products.
- OpenAI shared copies of these works (with copyright management information removed) with Microsoft in the development of ChatGPT.
- Relief Sought:
- Statutory damages or actual damages plus defendants’ profits, an injunction requiring the removal of all copies of The Intercept’s work from training datasets and repositories where CMI was removed, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket for latest updates.
Daily News LP et al. v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI Inc. et. al., April 30, 2024
This lawsuit brought by the Daily Mail and several news publishers shares similar claims as others, so the resulting orders to consolidate the case with The New York Times and then also the Center for Investigative Reporting cases isn’t too much of a surprise.
The claims reflect what many of the publishers in the MDL are likely trying to capture here: how AI used their reporting systems, presents the information, and sometimes misattributes it in ways that affect their brands, readers, and credibility.
Prior to the MDL transfer, the court dismissed the Daily News unfair competition by misappropriation claim with prejudice, all DMCA claims against Microsoft without prejudice, as well as the distribution-based DMCA claim against OpenAI.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No.MDL Member Case No.: 1:24-cv-03285
- Complaint Filed: April 30, 2024
- Nature of Action: Daily news publishers allege that Microsoft and OpenAI copied millions of their copyrighted articles without permission to train their AI models.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Daily News, LP; Chicago Tribune Company, LLC; Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC; Sun-Sentinel Company, LLC; San Jose Mercury-News, LLC; DP Media Network, LLC; ORB Publishing, LLC; and Northwest Publications, LLC
- Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global, LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, and OpenAI Holdings, LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI and Microsoft used the publishers’ journalism to build their AI products without authorization, removed copyright management information, and created copies or derivative works with copyright management information removed.
- Microsoft controlled, directed, and profited from this infringement because it controls and directs the platform that stores, processes, and reproduces the training datasets, GPT models, and ChatGPT’s offerings.
- OpenAI also profited from this arrangement due to its role in controlling and directing the reproduction and distribution of the publishers’ journalism.
- Microsoft and OpenAI engaged in unfair competition by offering GenAI content that is a direct copy of or similar to the publishers’ journalism.
- The AI outputs misattribute reporting or falsely associate it with publisher brands, causing confusion about the content’s source and harming publisher reputation.
- Relief Sought:
- Statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, any other relief permitted by law, stopping the defendants from the unlawful, unfair, and infringing conduct, and the destruction of AI model training sets that use the plaintiffs’ works.
- An award of costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, or any other relief the Court finds appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket for latest updates.
The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Inc., et. al. and Microsoft Corporation, June 27, 2024
The Center for Investigative Reporting case is similar to other publisher-related lawsuits in the sense that it also claimed copyright infringement and DMCA violations against OpenAI and Microsoft (likely why it had been consolidated with The New York Times and Daily Mail cases).
The complaint focuses on how the defendants handled training data, especially in terms of how it relates to attribution and copyright management information. With this kind of emphasis, the case reflects that this is a real concern for the news publishing industry in general.
That said, a few of its claims had been dismissed prior to the MDL transfer. The Court dismissed the Center’s “abridgment” claims with prejudice, as well as all the DMCA-based claims against Microsoft and the distribution-related DMCA claim against OpenAI without prejudice.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No.MDL Member Case No.: 1:24-cv-04872
- Complaint Filed: June 27, 2024
- Nature of Action: Nonprofit news organization alleges OpenAI and Microsoft copied its copyrighted articles and removed copyright management information without permission to train their AI models.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc.
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and Microsoft Corporation
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI and Microsoft downloaded the Center’s registered works, encoded them in memory, and allowed ChatGPT and Copilot, respectively to regurgitate those works in response to user prompts.
- Defendants contributed to and assisted with the infringement by developing large language models capable of distributing abridgements and unlicensed copies of the Center’s registered works by end users of their AI products.
- Defendants shared copies of these works with copyright management information removed with each other to develop ChatGPT and Copilot.
- Relief Sought:
- Either statutory damages or both the plaintiff’s damages plus the defendant’s profits, an injunction requiring the removal of the Center’s registered works (including derivatives), and their works from which copyright information has been removed from their training datasets and other repositories.
- An injunction requiring the removal of copies or derivatives from the training sets, and attorney fees and costs.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket above for latest updates.
Ziff Davis Inc. et. al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., April 24, 2025
Ziff Davis is a tag-along action to join the publisher-related cases in MDL No. 3143, which makes sense, as it focuses on copyright infringement.
Additionally, Ziff Davis brings a circumvention claim.
OpenAI published instructions that would allow website operators to opt out of content mining by GPTBot (which involved adding some code to robots.txt), and Ziff Davis followed those guidelines. Yet, Ziff Davis’ claims that OpenAI continued to scrape their content.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
- Case No/Court File No.: 1:25-cv-00501
- MDL Member Case No.: 1:25-cv-04315
- Complaint Filed: April 24, 2025
- Nature of Action: Digital media publisher alleges that OpenAI copied its copyrighted works without permission, circumvented robots.txt protections to train its AI models, and also removed copyright management information.
Quick Overview of the Original Case:
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Ziff Davis, Inc, Ziff Davis, LLC, IGN Entertainment, Inc., and Everyday Health Media, LLC
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, and OpenAI Holdings, LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI allegedly removed copyright management information from Ziff Davis’ journalism before incorporating it into AI training datasets, used it to train their models, and reproduced and distributed these works.
- OpenAI engaged in these actions without providing any compensation.
- OpenAI disregarded and bypassed technological protections.
- OpenAI’s products have provided misleading or false summaries of Ziff Davis’ content, harming their reputation as a publisher of high-quality content.
- Relief Sought:
- Statutory damages, an injunction stopping further copyright violations, destruction of any datasets or models that contain the plaintiff’s registered works, and attorney fees and costs.
Case Status
- Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket above for latest updates.
Denial et al. v. OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft Corporation et al., June 30, 2025
The Denial suit brought another tag-along action to MDL No. 3143. It focuses on similar claims that OpenAI and Microsoft trained their AI models on copyrighted works without proper authorization, noting that “OpenAI engaged in a systematic campaign of IP theft and data piracy”.
It alleges property claims and a market angle, alleging that the OpenAI-Microsoft arrangement helped keep training data effectively cheap by exchanging data instead of buying it.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No/Court File No.: 3:25-cv-05495
- MDL Member Case No.: 1:25-cv-06286
- Complaint Filed: June 30, 2025
- Nature of Action: Writers allege that OpenAI pirated their copyrighted works from shadow libraries to train its AI models, plus copyright management information removal.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Catherine Denial, Ian McDowell, and Steven Schwartz
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, LP, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I, LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, and Microsoft Corporation
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI copied millions of copyrighted works without consent to train and operate its AI products, even pulling copies from shadow libraries like LibGen; as such, the defendants engaged in unfair business practices.
- Microsoft benefited from OpenAI’s infringing use of copied works by integrating OpenAI’s models into Microsoft’s products.
- Defendants bypassed access restrictions (ignoring robots.txt) to obtain and use copyrighted content.
- Defendants engaged in “CMI-stripping” by removing copyright management information from copyrighted works used in training.
- Defendants received and retained digital files/property that plaintiffs describe as having been obtained ‘in a manner constituting theft’,
- OpenAI then attempted to conceal that it was using copyrighted data by removing copyright-identifying information.
- In sharing and exchanging access to training data instead of buying or licensing it, OpenAI and Microsoft suppressed a normal paid market for training data.
- Relief Sought:
- Class action status, declarations of infringement, an award of statutory and other damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest on damages, financial responsibility for costs and expenses to give notification to the Class via media and post.
- Nominal, treble, and punitive damages, injunctive relief including the return, destruction, and cessation of the use of any data illegally obtained, restitution and non-restitutionary disgorgement of all profits due to unjust enrichment, and other equitable relief.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket above for latest updates.
California Newspapers Partnership et al. v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI et al., November 26, 2025
Quickly marked as related to MDL No. 3143 after filing, the California Newspapers Partnerships complaint brought nine publishers offering either regional or metropolitan area newspapers to the copyright fight against Microsoft and OpenAI.
Although its claims aren’t particularly different from the suits before it, its request for damages “in excess of $10 billion” certainly stands out.
Further, the complaint explicitly says that the alleged conduct continued “even in the wake of three years of litigation brought by other publishers”, suggesting that “ongoing violations of plaintiff’s rights” was a (knowing) decision on the part of the defendants.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No.: 1:25-cv-09904
- Complaint Filed: November 26, 2025
- Nature of Action: Regional/metropolitan news publishers allege OpenAI and Microsoft copied hundreds of thousands of their works without permission — ignoring paywalls and years of similar lawsuits — for AI training.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): California Newspapers Partnership, Prairie Mountain Publishing Company LLP, MNG-BH Acquisition LLC, Hartford Courant Publishing, LLC, The Daily Press LLC, The Morning Call, LLC, Virginian-Pilot Media Companies, LLC, Los Angeles Daily News Publishing Company, The San Diego Tribune, LLC
- Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global, LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI and Microsoft illegally stored, processed, and reproduced the publishers’ copyrighted works, and used them in data training sets to train their GPT models on Microsoft’s supercomputing platform, and have disseminated copies of these works through ChatGPT and Copilot.
- Defendants intentionally removed copyright management information “in one or more different ways” when building their training datasets.
- Microsoft and OpenAI controlled, directed, and profited from the direct infringement of the publishers’ works.
- Microsoft contributed to and assisted in OpenAI’s direct infringement.
- Defendants had knowledge of direct infringement by end-users of their GPT products.
- Relief Sought:
- Statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief in excess of $10 billion, as well as $25000 for each work that had copyright management information removed.
- Permanently prohibiting OpenAI and Microsoft from their infringing, unlawful, and unfair conduct.
- Destruction of the training sets, GPT, and LLM models that contain the publishers’ works.
- Costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as determined by the Court.
Case Status
- Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket above for latest updates.
US News & World Report v. OpenAI et al., November 26, 2025
Filed the same day as the California Newspapers Partnership complaint and also quickly marked as a consolidated MDL case, the US News & World Report (USNWR) complaint also acknowledges its copyright allegations are in line with the consolidated cases that came before it. With the way it’s framed, though, it seems like it doesn’t want to appear as just another publisher case in the MDL.
One way it does this is by pulling focus to what makes its content unique: its rankings publications. The complaint even specifies that the case “differs from previous cases” because USNWR has a “unique niche” tied to these publications.
It also goes into detail about its licensing language, pointing to text in USNWR’s Terms and Conditions specifying that their content is only for “noncommercial, personal use”, and another section that prohibits its publications from being used in the training and development of AI tools. Further, it includes multiple trademark-related claims as well.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Case No/Court File No.: 1:25-cv-09912
- Complaint Filed: November 26, 2025
- Nature of Action: News publisher alleges OpenAI copied and used its content for AI training without permission, ignoring its licensing terms and diluting its trademark in the process.
Quick Overview of the Case
- Initial Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): US News & World Report
- Defendant(s): OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI, LLC, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Global, LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI removed USNWR’s copyright management information from protected works.
- OpenAI contributed to, assisted with, and had knowledge of direct infringement by its GPT products’ end-users.
- Defendants’ products copy, use, reproduce, and distribute materials with USNWR trademarks, which may confuse the public and harm its reputation
- Since OpenAI’s products’ generated output contains marks that are near-identical or identical to USNWR’s marks, they should be considered counterfeit.
- OpenAI knows that its products falsely attribute content, including hallucinations and undisclosed omissions, to USNWR’s marks through its use of near-identical/identical marks, which can make the public think the output is coming from or endorsed by USNWR and thereby harm their reputation.
- Relief Sought:
- Statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief under law or equity.
- Permanently preventing them from continuing with this conduct.
- Destruction of all GPT, LLM models, and training sets that contain USNWR’s copyrighted works.
- Costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other relief the Court finds appropriate.
Case Status
Ongoing. Included in MDL No. 3143 (In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation), but remains a separate member case. See docket above for latest updates.
Toronto Star Newspapers Limited et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., November 28, 2024
Though it’s the first of its kind in Canada, the theory behind the allegations brought forth by these Canadian news media companies is very similar to some of the publisher suits in the US: OpenAI used copyrighted journalism to train its large language models without permission and bypassed technological protections (such as robots.txt) in the process
As the first case of its kind in Canada, it does bring an interesting question to the table: can this kind of dispute against a US-based AI company be tried in an Ontario, Canada court?
If the court does decide to keep it in Canada — it opens the door for other Canadian publisher and copyright holders.
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: Canadian news publishers allege OpenAI deliberately scraped their copyrighted journalism to train its AI models, circumventing their technological protections and breaching website terms of use in the process.
Quick Overview of the Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): 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(s): 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, and OpenAI Holdings LLC
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI deliberately scraped the news media companies’ articles and other copyrighted material to train its large language models (LLMs).
- They also went around safeguards that the plaintiffs put in place to prevent this unauthorized scraping.
- OpenAI didn’t adhere to the Terms of Use on the plaintiffs’ respective websites, which specified how their published content could be used.
- Defendants unfairly profited from their copyrighted material by using it to improve products like ChatGPT without providing payment to the original publishers.
- Relief Sought:
- Damages plus profits from the alleged infringement and circumvention or statutory damages of $20,000 per work (or another amount the court considers just).
- Damages and/or an accounting and disgorgement of profits for breach of contract, as well as unjust enrichment.
- Punitive or exemplary damages.
- Permanent injunctions restraining the infringement/circumvention and obtaining/using the works, including in ways that violate the Terms of Use without written consent.
- A “wide injunction” under the Copyright Act.
- Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and any other relief the court considers just.
Case Status
Ongoing. In a jurisdiction motion filed November 7, 2025, the court decided to let the action proceed in Ontario.
ANI v. OpenAI Inc. et. al., November 19, 2024
ANI’s lawsuit is the first of its kind in India. It also offers another somewhat unique angle here: the fact that it gave OpenAI a chance to avoid any legal issues entirely.
According to the BBC, ANI told OpenAI that it had been using its content unlawfully before filing anything, and even offered to let the AI company license it, which, Reuters reports, is something OpenAI had done with other news organizations in the past (learn more on OpenAI partnerships). However, OpenAI declined.
Instead, OpenAI told ANI that it had been put on an internal blocklist and asked it to block certain web crawlers to ensure its data would not be collected or picked up by ChatGPT.
ANI did so, but it didn’t solve the problem. ChatGPT still managed to access the websites of its subscribers and pick ANI’s content up from there.
Of course, as with similar non-US suits (like the Toronto Star one out of Canada), the first thing the Court needs to determine is whether it can even hear the lawsuit, since OpenAI’s servers are in the US. If it can, it could mean similar Indian publisher-related lawsuits are to follow.
Case Details
- Court: High Court of Delhi, India
- Case No./Court File No.: CS(COMM) 1028/2024
- Complaint Filed: November 19, 2024
- Nature of Action: Indian news agency alleges OpenAI used its copyrighted content without permission to train ChatGPT despite pre-suit offers to let the company license it.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): ANI Media Pvt Ltd (Asian News International)
- Defendant(s): OpenAI Inc. et. al.
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI stored and used ANI’s news content without permission to train and operate ChatGPT.
- Despite OpenAI claiming to have taken measures to prevent ANI’s data from being picked up and collected, ChatGPT still picks up the news agency’s content from website subscribers (source).
- OpenAI’s ChatGPT attributed false news stories to ANI, misleading the public and hurting the news agency’s credibility (source).
- Relief Sought:
- A court order to prevent OpenAI and ChatGPT from storing, publishing, or using ANI’s copyrighted works while the case is ongoing.
- A court order directing OpenAI to disable ChatGPT’s access to any content published by ANI or its subscribers.
- Reference:
Case Status
Ongoing. In a February 11th, 2025, legal filing seen by Reuters, OpenAI sought to block additional Indian media groups from joining the ANI case and denied using their content to train ChatGPT.
Musk v. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI et al., August 5, 2024
After dropping his February 2024 lawsuit against OpenAI back in June without prejudice (more on that one below), Musk refiled. This case echoes the first case: Musk originally backed OpenAI because they had pitched it as a nonprofit devoted to developing AI for “the good of the world”, with safety treated as a “first-class requirement”.
However, OpenAI’s structure and direction then proceeded to move in a more commercial direction.
Essentially, this filing aims to paint the situation as intentional and even deceptive, with fraud and civil RICO claims on top of contract and business claims.
If Musk succeeds on his fraud claims here, nonprofits in general may need to be more careful about the mission-based promises they make during fundraising, and whether donors can actually enforce them if the organization starts looking more commercial.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Original Case No./Court File No.: 3:24-cv-04722
- Reassigned Case No./Court File No.: 4:24-cv-04722
- Complaint Filed: August 5, 2024
- Nature of Action: Musk alleges breach of contract and fraud for OpenAI becoming a for-profit venture, betraying his original agreed-upon founding mission with OpenAI co-founders.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Elon Musk
- Defendant(s): 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, OpenAI Investment LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP I–IV LLCs, OpenAI Startup Fund SPV I–IV LPs, Aestas Management Company LLC, Aestas LLC, Does 1–10.
- Claim(s):
- Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI allegedly made false promises, representations, and assurances that their venture would be a nonprofit built for public benefit to pull in backing from Musk.
- They also used that pitch to solicit Musk’s contributions, even as they intended to shift OpenAI toward a more commercial setup.
- OpenAI’s for-profit entities knew about and assisted with the fraud.
- Defendants establish a pattern of racketeering activity.
- Defendants agreed and worked together to commit the same RICO scheme.
- Altman and OpenAI Inc. broke express and implied contracts with Musk.
- Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Musk’s expense.
- False marketing, advertising, and promotions about the non-profit harmed Musk’s reputation and commercial interests.
- OpenAI’s for-profit entities knew and enabled the circumvention of Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc.’s fiduciary duty to donors.
- The for-profit entities also interfered with OpenAI Inc.’s contract with Musk by siphoning valuable non-profit assets into their for-profit structure.
- The defendants’ conduct involved unfair business practices tied to how OpenAI presented itself and operated, resulting in unfair competition.
- The Court to declare what the parties’ rights are, including which GPT models (e.g., GPT-4, GPT-4T, GPT-4o, and others) are outside the scope of the license to Microsoft.
- Relief Sought:
- Compensatory, consequential, and statutory damages, plus restitution and disgorgement with interest.
- A constructive trust over any “ill-gotten” gains or assets tied to Musk’s contributions, and a full accounting of defendants’ gains, profits, and advantages from Musk’s contributions, including an accounting of what they did with the funds.
- A court ruling that OpenAI’s Microsoft license is invalid, or, if it’s valid, which models qualify as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and are therefore outside the license.
- An order ensuring the defendants follow the promises/commitments Musk says they agreed to.
- Preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the unlawful/unfair conduct going forward.
- Treble damages.
- Punitive/exemplary damages, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and anything else the Court thinks is fair/appropriate
- Reference:
Case Status
Ongoing. The operative pleading is now the Second Amended Complaint. Highlights include adding xAI as a co-plaintiff and Microsoft as a defendant. See the docket for the latest updates.
Musk v. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI Inc. et. al., February 29, 2024
In Round 1 of Musk v. OpenAI (see Round 2 above), Musk centers the claims around the idea that Brockman, Altman, and the AI company breached their Founding Agreement. Instead of OpenAI developing AGI “for the benefit of humanity rather than any for-profit company or personal profit”, the defendants “radically departed from their mission.”
Musk alleges that OpenAI made GPT-4’s internal design a “complete secret” (whereas OpenAI’s initial research had been open) for commercial reasons, going against the original agreement that required OpenAI to make “the technology freely available to the public”. The suit suggests Microsoft’s influence, as it could profit heavily by selling GPT-4 to the public.
What’s interesting is that Musk essentially asked the Court to order OpenAI to keep its original agreement: to keep the AI company’s research and technology free and open source, and prevent it from using its assets to benefit for-profit interests.
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: Musk alleges breach of contract for converting OpenAI from a nonprofit to a for-profit venture, betraying the founding mission.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Elon Musk
- Defendant(s): 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
- Claim(s):
- Altman, Brockman, and other OpenAI defendants broke the founding agreement for OpenAI to be a nonprofit working toward AGI for the public benefit, and to keep its core technology open source except when safety required otherwise.
- Musk made his contributions based on the original agreement (which was broken) surrounding a nonprofit mission.
- OpenAI engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices.
- OpenAI hasn’t provided any transparency surrounding their finances, so an accounting is needed.
- Relief Sought:
- A court order forcing the defendants to keep OpenAI’s AI research and technology available to the public, and preventing them from using OpenAI Inc. or its assets to financially benefit private interests (including Microsoft).
- A determination that GPT-4, Q*, and/or any other of OpenAI’s next-generation LLMs are indeed AGI and therefore outside of the scope of OpenAI’s license to Microsoft.
- Injunctive relief that enforces the above rulings.
- Restitution and disgorgement of the money the defendants received while engaging in unfair business practices, along with any other related interest and penalties.
- An accounting of donated funds and any IP or derivative works funded by them, including how the defendants used them for individual or third-party benefit.
- General, compensatory, and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate
- Reference:
Case Status
Withdrawn. On June 11, Musk’s attorneys moved to dismiss this lawsuit. However, they chose to dismiss the case without prejudice, enabling him to refile. And he did just that on August 5, 2024. See docket for case history.
A.S. v OpenAI LP et. al., February 27, 2024
The A.S. complaint is similar to earlier privacy-and-data-centered cases against OpenAI (learn more about the P.M. and T. cases below).
It’s framed largely as a privacy violation, as the complaint alleges OpenAI and Microsoft collected and used people’s private information without informed consent, then used that data in training.
Since the allegations are so consistent with the P.M. and T. cases, the implications of a win here would likely be too: OpenAI and similar companies would likely face pressure to provide clearer opt-in consent and stricter limits on the information they collect and retain for their products, which could actually benefit them by creating more user trust.
At the same time, though, it could also increase costs and slow product changes, because enforceable limits usually mean more approvals and engineering work.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:24-cv-01190
- Complaint Filed: February 27, 2024
- Nature of Action: ChatGPT user alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft collected users’ online communications and web activity without informed consent, and used that information to train and develop their products.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): A.S., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI LP, OpenAI Inc., OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, Microsoft Corporation, and Does 1-20 inclusive
- Claims:
- OpenAI and Microsoft acted as an “eavesdropper” on people’s private online communications (such as its ChatGPT API integrations and Microsoft products that use ChatGPT) and used that information to train AI products.
- In scraping this information, the defendants engaged in unfair competition.
- Defendants also failed to use reasonable care to prevent that information from being improperly accessed.
- The conduct of the defendants amounts to a serious invasion of privacy.
- The defendants’ taking of private information from individuals, for AI training, violated property interests.
- Relief Sought:
- Class action status, with plaintiff and counsel appointed to represent the classes.
- Compensatory and statutory damages (with treble damages where appropriate), as well as nominal and punitive damages.
- Non-restitutionary disgorgement of any profits from the defendants’ conduct
- Permanently stop the defendants and related parties from the unlawful conduct.
- Injuctive and equitable relief, including an AI Council, accountability protocols, cybersecurity safeguards, transparency protocols, an opt-out for both users and internet users, deletion or compensation for ill-gotten data (and potentially related algorithms), a threat management program, creation of an AI Monetary Fund, and confirmation that relevant PII/PHI has been deleted unless retention is justified.
- Reasonable costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court sees fit.
- Reference:
Case Status
Dismissed. Although appropriately marked as a related case to T. v. OpenAI, A.S.’s case didn’t follow the same fate. On May 30, 2024, A.S. voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. See docket for case history.
OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., August 4, 2023
Given the similarity of the names in this case, this case centers around trademark infringement.
OpenAI alleges that not only did the defendants file a trademark application for their infringing mark the day OpenAI announced its founding, but that they also manufactured false evidence to mislead the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The complaint says the domain tied to the defendants’ trademark application for “Open AI” redirected visitors to OpenAI’s own website.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:23-cv-03918
- Complaint Filed: August 4, 2023
- Nature of Action: Federal Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Fraudulent Registration, Cancellations
Quick Overview of the Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): OpenAI Inc.
- Defendant(s): Open Artificial Intelligence Inc. and Guy Ravine
- Claim(s):
- Defendants adopted and used the “Open AI” mark in a way that is likely to confuse the public into thinking they are associated with OpenAI (which has “nationwide, common law rights in the OpenAI Marks senior to any legitimate rights the Defendants may have”).
- This infringement has harmed OpenAI’s reputation and business identity and caused monetary injuries as well.
- Defendants manufactured false evidence to mislead the USPTO.
- Since “Neither Defendant makes—or has ever made—bona fide use of the Infringing Mark in commerce” and hasn’t maintained any goodwill associated with it, the infringing mark should be cancelled because it could damage OpenAI.
- By redirecting visitors from their domain name to OpenAI’s domain and website (for years), the defendants misrepresented that the two companies are related, and should therefore be cancelled.
- Relief Sought:
- A judgment that the defendants willfully and fraudulently infringed OpenAI’s trademark rights and engaged in unfair competition.
- Damages, interest, and a full accounting of what the defendants made from their conduct, plus the ability for the Court to treble any damages.
- Disgorgement and restitution of profits wrongfully obtained, as well as punitive damages
- Cancellation of the “Open AI” trademark registration and transfer of the open.ai domain to OpenAI.
- Costs of the lawsuit and attorneys’ fees, plus any other relief the Court believes fit.
- Reference:
Case Status
Judgment entered in favor of OpenAI. On July 31, 2025, the Court entered judgment for OpenAI on all claims (and against defendants on all counterclaims), issued a permanent injunction barring the further use of the “Open AI” / “open.ai” marks and related conduct, and ordered the USPTO to cancel the “Open AI” registration.
The Court awarded one dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages and taxable costs, and directed the Clerk to close the matter. See docket for case history.
T. et al. v. OpenAI LP et al., September 5, 2023
Similar to the P.M. case that came before it (more on that below), this case focuses on privacy and data. More specifically, what data OpenAI collected, how it collected it, and what it did with it afterward.
The lack of safeguards around the process is a clear focus.
The complaint claims that the professional knowledge that OpenAI’s products collect could affect people’s jobs and even make them obsolete. Worse, they could also “be used for exceedingly nefarious purposes, such as tracking, surveillance, and crime.”
For example, ChatGPT could create whole profiles of users’ behavior patterns using data like browsing history and geolocation, including “where they go, what they do, with whom they interact, and what their interests and habits are.”
If the Court decides that AI products can indeed be treated like surveillance tech when their data collection is so broad, OpenAI and similar companies could face pressure to create clearer opt-in consent and put stricter limits on what kind of data gets collected and kept.
Case Details
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:23-cv-04557
- Complaint Filed: September 5, 2023
- Nature of the Action: ChatGPT users allege that OpenAI and Microsoft collected users’ online communications and web activity without meaningful consent, and used that information to train and operate their AI products.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): A.T., J.H., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI LP, OpenAI Inc., OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, Microsoft Corporation, and Does 1-20 inclusive
- Claims(s):
- Defendants tracked users’ electronic communications (including webpage browsing histories and search queries) through ChatGPT and its API integrations.
- OpenAI and Microsoft owed a duty to use reasonable care in collecting, storing, and safeguarding users’ private information, yet failed to protect it.
- In gathering, using, and disseminating information, the defendants invaded user privacy, as users should’ve had a reasonable expectation of privacy that their “confidential communications” wouldn’t be used for AI products.
- Defendants put themselves in the middle of private user communications (e.g., computing devices and web browsers), which a reasonable person would likely find “highly offensive.”
- “Plaintiffs and the User Classes Members did not consent to such taking and misuse of their personal data, and Private Information.”
- Defendants were unjustly enriched due to the commercialization of “Plaintiffs’, Nationwide Classes’, and User Classes’ sensitive data.”
- Defendants engaged in “deceptive and unlawful” conduct.
- Relief Sought:
- Class action status, with named plaintiffs and counsel.
- Compensatory (with interest and treble damages where applicable), statutory (with treble damages where applicable), nominal, and punitive damages.
- Disgorgement of profits made from the conduct.
- Permanently prevent defendants from the conduct at issue.
- Injunctive and equitable relief deemed appropriate, including the establishment of an AI Council and AI Monetary Fund.
- Attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and any other relief the Court thinks fit.
- Reference:
Case Status
Closed. With the First Amended Complaint as the operative pleading (and an updated case caption of Marilyn Cousart, et al v. OpenAI LP et al.), the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on May 24, 2024, basically due to the complaint being “needlessly long” and containing “largely irrelevant, distracting, or redundant information.”
Since the plaintiffs provided intent not to amend this complaint, the judge ordered the case closed on June 27, 2024. See docket for case history.
Walters v. OpenAI LLC, July 14, 2023
Mark Walters’ core allegation in this lawsuit is that ChatGPT generated a story that falsely accused him of embezzling, and OpenAI “should have known” that ChatGPT’s statements “were false and defamatory.”
According to the complaint, when Fred Riehl, a third-party journalist, asked ChatGPT to summarize the accusations in a lawsuit, the chatbot generated a response full of false claims about Walters, including that he had been accused of defrauding and embezzling money.
Case Details
- Federal:
- Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
- Case No./Court File No.: 1:2023-cv-03122
- Complaint Filed: July 14, 2023
- State
- Court: The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia
- Case No./Court File No.: 23-A-04860-2
- Complaint Filed: June 5, 2023
- Nature of the Action: Walters alleges that ChatGPT generated false embezzlement claims about him that harmed his reputation, and is holding OpenAI responsible.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): Mark Walters
- Defendant(s): OpenAI LLC
- Claims:
- OpenAI’s product, ChatGPT, generated “false and malicious” text statements about Walters, harming his reputation.
- Since it sent the false allegations to a third party, OpenAI published libelous information about Walters.
- OpenAI knew or should’ve known that the communication was false, or “disregarded the falsity of the communication.”
- Relief Sought:
- General and punitive damages
- Lawsuit-related costs, including attorneys' fees
- A jury trial
- Any other relief the Court sees fit
- Reference:
Case Status
Judgment entered in favor of OpenAI. On May 19, 2025, Judge Cason entered judgment in favor of OpenAI, basically stating that a reasonable reader wouldn’t take ChatGPT’s answer as fact, “a reasonable reader in Riehl's position could no have concluded that the challenged ChatGPT output communicated ‘actual facts.’" (it said it couldn’t access the link, and Riehl, “was aware from past experience that ChatGPT can and does provide ‘flat-out fictional responses’” knew it could give false answers). See docket for federal case history.
P.M. et al v. OpenAI LP et. al., June 28, 2023
This early case focused on privacy and data. It would actually become almost a template of similar complaints that followed (see the A.S. and T. cases above).
The core allegation here is that the defendants “secretly harvested massive amounts of personal data from the internet” without consent from its owners, and used it to train and develop their products (including ChatGPT).
The complaint throws a lengthy and varied list of claims, including allegations like larceny and receipt of stolen property.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:23-cv-03199
- Complaint Filed: June 28, 2023
- Nature of Action: Plaintiffs claim that OpenAI and Microsoft collected users’ online data without meaningful consent and used that information to train and operate their AI products.
Quick Overview of the Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): P.M., K.S,. B.B., S.J., N.G., C.B., S.N., J.P., S.A., L.M., D.C., C.L., R.F., N.J., R. R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
- Defendant(s): OpenAI LP, OpenAI Inc., OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, Microsoft Corporation, and DOES 1-20 inclusive
- Claim(s):
- OpenAI intercepted people’s electronic communications in real time through ChatGPT API integrations, then used that content to train their AI products.
- Web scraping was done without consent, “Without any notice to the public, no one can be said to have consented to the collection of their online personal data.”
- Defendants, through AI products, accessed users’ devices and systems unlawfully.
- Defendants took people’s photos from the internet and scanned their facial geometry to create biometric training data for DALL-E.
- Defendants did not adequately disclose how data was used.
- Private and copyrighted information played a key role in the success of the products: “unprecedented theft of private and copyrighted information…the Products would not be the multi-billion-dollar business they are today.”
- Relief Sought:
- Injunctive relief temporarily preventing the commercial access and development of the AI products until certain conditions are met, including the establishment of an AI Council to approve uses of the products before deployment and the implementation of accountability protocols.
- Actual, statutory, and monetary damages, restitution, and disgorgement.
- Pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees.
- Treble, punitive, and exemplary damages under applicable laws.
- Any other relief the Court believes appropriate.
- Reference:
Case Status
Dismissed. On September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case without prejudice. See docket for case history.
Doe 3 et al v. GitHub Inc. and OpenAI Inc. et. al., November 10, 2022
Filed shortly after the Doe 1 complaint, Doe 3 basically echoes the same core allegation: that Copilot and Codex create outputs of materials which are copyrighted “without following the terms of the applicable licences.”
A verdict in Doe 3’s favor here could cause code-model companies to take license and attribution obligations more seriously.
This could cause OpenAI and companies in similar situations to do two things: lock in contracts with the platforms using their models to help prevent license and attribution issues, and try to develop more of this control into the model itself.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:22-cv-07074
- Reassigned Case No./Court File No.: 4:22-cv-07074
- Complaint Filed: November 10, 2022
- Nature of Action: Plaintiffs allege copyright management information removal and that Codex and Copilot generate outputs of copyrighted materials that don’t follow the applicable licenses or terms.
Quick Overview of the Original Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff(s): J. Doe 3 and J. Doe 4
- Defendant(s): GitHub Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI Inc, OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I, LP, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC
- Claim(s):
- GitHub and OpenAI trained Codex/Copilot on open-source code that had been shared under “Suggested Licenses,” then generated output without including the attribution, copyright notices, or license terms those licenses required.
- Defendants designed and adjusted Codex/Copilot so as not to reproduce this copyright management information (CMI).
- Claims of unfair competition, such as by “Passing off Copilot’s Output as originating from Copilot, GitHub, and/or OpenAI.”
- GitHub and OpenAI profited from the removal of attribution and copyright information and then reselling it as “Output” through Copilot.
- Privacy violations, including “negligent handling of personal data.”
- Relief Sought:
- The case to receive class action status (with class reps/counsel) and a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs/class.
- A permanent injunction requiring changes to Copilot to ensure it includes any required CMI alongside its output (including associated code).
- An award of damages or statutory damages.
- Legal fees, pre- and post-judgement interest, class notice costs (through post and media), plus any other relief the Court deems fit.
- On applicable claims, a jury trial.
- Reference:
Case Status
Ongoing. The operative pleading is now the Second Amended Complaint after consolidation with the Doe 1 case against GitHub and OpenAI.
See Doe 1 docket for the latest updates, or Doe 3 docket for the case history prior to consolidation.
Doe 1 et. al. v. GitHub, Inc. and OpenAI Inc. et. al., November 3, 2022
In this case, the plaintiffs allege that although open-source licenses had been attached to much of the training data behind Codex and, by extension, Copilot, they were trained to act like the licenses didn’t exist (including by generating output that doesn’t include attribution).
The complaint even goes so far as to call this “software piracy on an unprecedented scale.”
If the Court agrees, OpenAI and anyone else building code models may need to start auditing data for licenses, potentially requiring something like opt-in consent or filtered datasets.
This could make their training and development processes both slower and more expensive.
Case Details
- Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Case No./Court File No.: 3:22-cv-06823
- Reassigned Case No./Court File No.: 4:22-cv-06823
- Complaint Filed: November 3, 2022
- Nature of Action: Plaintiffs allege copyright stripping and license breaches for GitHub, OpenAI, and Microsoft training AI on public code repositories without attribution.
Quick Overview of the Case
- Parties:
- Plaintiff: J. Doe 1 and J. Doe 2
- Defendant: GitHub Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI Inc, OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I, LP, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC
- Claim(s):
- Defendants removed/stripped copyright management information (CMI) from the licensed code used to train Codex/Copilot.
- Users of Copilot are unable to know if their output is subject to restrictions or owned by another person due to the removal of CMI.
- Defendants accepted open-source license terms by using the code, but then proceeded to generate the output without following those terms.
- Claims of unfair competition, such as by “Passing off Copilot’s Output as originating from Copilot, GitHub, and/or OpenAI.”
- Defendants profited and gained an unfair advantage (at the expense of Plaintiffs), “GitHub and OpenAI are profiting at the expense of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights.”
- GitHub and OpenAI mishandled personal information, “incorporating Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s personal information into Copilot with no way to alter or delete.”
- Relief Sought:
- Class action status and a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs/class.
- A permanent injunction forcing changes to GitHub Copilot so that outputs include all applicable information.
- Statutory damages or actual damages.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of class notice, and any other relief the Court thinks is appropriate.
- A jury trial on the claims that qualify.
- Reference:
Case Status
Ongoing. The operative pleading is now the Second Amended Complaint after consolidation with the Doe 3 case against GitHub and OpenAI. See docket for latest updates.
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 raise questions about the legal framework applicable to ChatGPT and emerging AI technologies. It could also be fined and be required to change its data collection and use practices (such as stricter regulations). Further, these cases could set precedents for other lawsuits against AI companies.
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. Specific details can be found in the summaries of the respective cases and within their latest updates via the associated dockets.
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 laws, privacy rights, 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.
