The New York Times, the Daily News, and other major publishers are pushing for OpenAI copyright sanctions in a legal battle that could reshape journalism’s future. These media outlets accuse the ChatGPT maker of hiding critical evidence in a landmark case. As a result, the fight over artificial intelligence and copyright law has escalated sharply this week.

Media Companies Accuse OpenAI of Hiding Evidence

A filing submitted Thursday in a Manhattan federal courthouse claims OpenAI “chose obstruction” instead of releasing datasets and ChatGPT logs. These records could reveal how the AI system used copyrighted news content during training. Consequently, the plaintiffs are asking the judge to penalize the company for “discovery misconduct.”

According to the filing, this misconduct could distort evidence in the upcoming trial. Furthermore, the newspapers argue that a recent deposition of an OpenAI employee contradicts the company’s earlier claims. This contradiction forms the core of their sanctions request.

New York Daily News attorney Steven Lieberman didn’t hold back in his criticism. He said OpenAI has been “making misrepresentations” for two years about its ability to search copyrighted content within its training datasets and logs. Lieberman represents the Daily News and seven of its sister publications.

“This motion asks the court to punish OpenAI for hiding and destroying evidence showing how ChatGPT was trained on stolen journalism,” Lieberman stated. This accusation strikes at the heart of the broader AI copyright fight playing out across multiple courtrooms nationwide.

Meanwhile, OpenAI has defended its limited sharing of ChatGPT logs. The company frames this restriction as a necessary measure to protect user privacy rather than an attempt at evidence concealment.

OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri pushed back firmly against the allegations. “As the Times’ case weakens and they’ve been forced to drop claims against us, they’re persisting with their efforts to invade the privacy of people who have nothing to do with this case, including by making these blatantly false allegations,” Pusateri said. He added, “We’ll continue defending our users’ privacy and the long-established principles of fair use.”

Background of the Copyright Infringement Trial

The New York Times originally sued OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023. This lawsuit came roughly a year after ChatGPT’s debut sparked a massive commercial AI boom. Subsequently, the way people search for information online began shifting dramatically.

The threat to news publications grew even sharper in 2024. That year, Google introduced AI-generated summaries at the top of search results. This change effectively cut off advertising revenue that once flowed when readers clicked through to original news sources.

Since then, several other organizations have joined the Times in its legal pursuit. These include MediaNews Group-owned papers like the Daily News and the Chicago Tribune, along with digital publisher Ziff Davis and the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting.

OpenAI and other tech companies maintain that training AI systems on digitized books and online articles qualifies as “fair use” under U.S. copyright law. However, this legal theory is currently being tested across dozens of lawsuits. Visual artists, novelists, and music labels have all filed similar claims, with mixed outcomes so far.

Notably, Anthropic—an OpenAI rival—already settled a related case for $1.5 billion. That settlement, paid to book authors over pirated training material, represents the largest copyright payout in this wave of litigation. Even so, it amounts to a small fraction of Anthropic’s $965 billion market valuation ahead of its public listing.

What Makes This AI Copyright Fight Different

The New York Times’ legal argument differs from those brought by book authors. Instead, the newspaper focuses on unfair competition. In its original complaint and an amended version filed last month, the Times argued that OpenAI and Microsoft “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism by using it to build substitutive products without permission or payment.”

This distinction matters because it centers on business harm rather than simple content reproduction. Therefore, the case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate AI-generated competition against original content creators.

The financial toll of this fight is already substantial. The Times has spent more than $28 million fighting AI companies in court, based on disclosures filed with financial regulators. Additionally, these costs cover a separate lawsuit the paper filed last year against AI company Perplexity.

Among the sanctions the newspapers now seek are attorney fees. These fees would cover the effort required to secure evidence the plaintiffs describe as “improperly withheld” by OpenAI throughout the discovery process.

Licensing Deals Offer an Alternative Path

Not every publisher has chosen the courtroom route. A growing number of media organizations have instead signed licensing deals with OpenAI and other AI companies, including Google and Meta. These agreements typically pay outlets a fee in exchange for training rights over their news feeds or archives.

The Associated Press led this trend, announcing the first such deal with OpenAI back in 2023. Since then, licensing has become a parallel strategy alongside litigation for many news organizations navigating this uncertain landscape.

Ultimately, both paths—litigation and licensing—reflect the same underlying tension. News publishers are working to protect their journalism’s value as AI companies race to build products powered by that very content.