Zing Open Zing
Technology

Publishers accuse OpenAI of concealing search capability, demand sanctions in copyright case

10 July 2026 · Source balance: Centre

The New York Times and other news publishers filed a motion Thursday seeking court sanctions against OpenAI, alleging the company misled the court for over two years about its ability to search training data and ChatGPT logs for copyrighted journalism. The publishers claim that in an April deposition, OpenAI privacy engineer Vinnie Monaco revealed the company had already conducted searches and maintained a database of 78 million de-identified conversations internally. They also allege OpenAI deleted billions of ChatGPT outputs and submitted heavily redacted evidence the court deemed unusable. The publishers seek financial penalties, attorney fees, and a court finding that OpenAI's logs prove copyright infringement. OpenAI denies the allegations, saying the Times is attempting to invade user privacy as its case weakens and arguing that training AI on published content constitutes fair use. The dispute centers on whether OpenAI intentionally obscured evidence or legitimately prioritized user privacy.

Key facts

  • OpenAI told the court it could not search training data for two years, then privacy engineer Vinnie Monaco revealed in April 2026 deposition it had already conducted such searches internally
  • OpenAI maintained an internal database of approximately 78 million de-identified ChatGPT conversations used to evaluate copyright infringement risks
  • Publishers requested 120 million ChatGPT logs; OpenAI offered 20 million; the sample submitted in December 2025 was so heavily redacted the court called it unusable
  • Publishers allege OpenAI deleted billions of ChatGPT outputs after the lawsuit was filed, violating a court preservation order
  • Five major publishers filed the sanctions motion: New York Times, Daily News, Center for Investigative Reporting, the Intercept, and Ziff Davis
  • OpenAI argues the plaintiffs are attempting to access private user conversations to invade privacy as their copyright case weakens
  • The Times has spent more than $28 million on AI-related litigation, including separate suits against Perplexity

How different outlets framed it

Left-leaning coverage: Left-leaning outlets frame this as a stark example of corporate misconduct by a tech giant exploiting journalism without payment. They emphasize that OpenAI deliberately hid the truth about copying copyrighted news content and destroyed evidence—conduct that should trigger serious legal consequences. The narrative highlights how AI companies are siphoning news revenue while news organizations struggle, positioning the case as a test of whether copyright law can protect journalists.

Right-leaning coverage: Right-leaning and tech-policy sources emphasize OpenAI's legitimate fair-use defense and the potential chilling effect of aggressive copyright suits on AI innovation. They stress that OpenAI's privacy arguments have merit—forcing disclosure of millions of user interactions raises real privacy concerns. Some also note that rejecting fair-use protections for AI training could impose massive damages that threaten U.S. technological competitiveness against international rivals like China.

Limits of this briefing

The court has not yet ruled on the sanctions motion, and OpenAI's characterization of its actions differs significantly from the publishers' interpretation. Discovery disputes are common in complex litigation, and timing of when OpenAI acquired certain capabilities remains contested. Final liability for copyright infringement has not been determined.

Sources

More stories

See all latest stories