Media companies are done waiting.
The New York Times, New York Daily News, and other publishers filed a motion on Thursday demanding federal sanctions against OpenAI.
It isn’t just another procedural hiccup. This is an escalation in the copyright war that threatens to hollow out the traditional news business model. The papers claim OpenAI is actively concealing data central to how it built its AI models. They want a Manhattan judge to penalize the company for what they call discovery misconduct.
What is OpenAI Allegedly Hiding?
The core accusation is obstruction.
According to the filing, OpenAI “chose obstruction” over transparency. The plaintiffs believe the AI maker has hidden or destroyed specific datasets and ChatGPT logs. These records would supposedly show exactly how much copyrighted news content fueled the training of the chatbot.
“This motion asks the court to punish OpenAI for hiding and destroying evidence showing how ChatGPT was trained on stolen journalism,” said Steven Lieberman, attorney for the Daily News.
Lieberman alleges his clients have heard the same false narratives about data accessibility for two years. A recent deposition reportedly contradicted earlier corporate statements. That gap? That’s where the misconduct charge comes in.
Why Do News Outlets See This as Existential?
It’s not just about copyright law in a vacuum.
It’s about revenue bleeding out. The threat sharpened in 2024. Google introduced AI overviews at the top of search results. Suddenly, readers get the summary. They don’t click the link. Advertisers stop paying. Publishers starve.
The Times started this legal battle in late 2023. Shortly after ChatGPT ’s debut, a commercial AI boom exploded. Information gathering shifted. Human journalists were sidelined by bots that scrape and summarize.
Since then, the Times isn’t alone.
- The New York Daily News (via parent MediaNews Group)
- Ziff Davis
- The Center for Investigative Reporting
- Various sister papers represented by Lieberman
All have joined or initiated suits.
Fair Use vs. Unfair Competition
OpenAI and its allies lean on one phrase: “Fair Use.”
They argue that training AI on digitized web content—articles, books, music—falls under US copyright exemptions. It’s a legal theory being stress-tested right now. Authors sued Anthropic. A rival AI company. The settlement was $1.5 billion. Paid to authors. No authorization given beforehand.
But the New York Times argument is different.
They aren’t arguing primarily about the right to copy text for training. They’re arguing about unfair competition.
If OpenAI profits from the Times ‘ investigative work without paying for it, while building a rival product, that isn’t fair play. That’s extraction.
The Times has already sunk $28 million into litigation against OpenAI and others like Perplexity. That number is going up.
How Will The Court Rule on Discovery Misconduct?
The immediate goal is financial pain.
The papers are seeking attorney fees to cover costs associated with uncovering what they claim were improperly withheld documents. They want the court to force OpenAI to turn over the logs. Or pay for the delay.
Here is the irony.
While courts argue over data theft, a new industry standard is forming outside the courtroom. Media organizations are signing licensing deals. With Google. With Meta. With OpenAI itself.
Some publishers are getting paid. Not because they won the moral high ground. Because the check cleared.
Sanctions won’t fix the revenue loss overnight. But it sends a signal. The cost of stealing news is rising.
Or so they hope.
