The Most Accurate AI Content Detector
Try Our AI Detector
AI Writing

OpenAI and ChatGPT Lawsuit List

We looked at all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI and listed them below. In addition to the relevant detail we had a lawyer provide some commentary. This list will remain updated as an easy-to-reference location for any lawsuits against OpenAI ordered by date (oldest to newest).

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

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

None of the information below is legal advice. 

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

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

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

Try Originality.ai's Content Integrity Tools:

AI Checker

Fact Checker

Plagiarism Detection

Readability Checker

Case 18: November 28, 2024, Canadian News Outlets v. OpenAI

Case Details

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

Parties:

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

Reference: 

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

Nature of the Action: 

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

Claims:

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

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

Case Summary:

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

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

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

Case Details

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

Parties:

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

Reference: 

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

Nature of the Action:

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

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

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

Claims:

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

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

Case Summary:

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

Case Status:

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

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

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

Case Details:

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

Parties:

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

Reference:

Nature of the Action:

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

Claims:

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

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

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

Case Summary:

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

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

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

Case Details

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

Parties:

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

Reference: 

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

Nature of the Action:

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

Claims:

Musk’s lawsuit outlines the following claims against OpenAI:

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

Case Summary:

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

Case Status:

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

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

Case Details

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

Parties:

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

Reference:

Nature of the Action:

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

Claims:

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

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

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

Case Summary:

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

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

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

Case Details

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

Parties:

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

Reference: 

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

Nature of the Action:

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

Claims:

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

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

Case Summary:

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

Relief Sought:

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

Case Status:

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

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

Nature of the Action

Copyright Infringement.

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

Claims

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

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

Case Summary

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

Key Issues

The key issues in this case include:

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

Potential Impact

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

Relief Sought

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

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

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

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims

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

Case Summary

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

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

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

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

Key Issues

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

Potential Impact

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

Relief Sought

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

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

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims

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

Case Summary:

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

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

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

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

Relief Sought

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

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

Nature of the Action 

Copyright Infringement

Claims

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

Summary

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

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

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

Relief Sought 

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

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

Nature of the Action 

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

Claims: 

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Relief Sought

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

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

Nature of the Action

Breach of Contract

Claims:

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

Case Summary:

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

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

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact

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

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

Relief Sought:

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

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

Nature of the Action: 

Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, and Unfair Competition

Claims:

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

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

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

Case Summary:

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

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

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

Key Issues:

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

Potential Impact:

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

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

Relief Sought:

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

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

Nature of the Action

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

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

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

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

Nature of the Action

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

Claim

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

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

Claims:

  • Similar to the Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad lawsuit against OpenAI, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey institute allegations against the entity responsible for the development of ChatGPT, OpenAI Inc.

  • The allegations brought forth encompass claims of both direct and vicarious copyright infringement, contraventions of section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

  • Unjust enrichment, breaches of the unfair competition statute under California  law and the common law, as well as acts of negligence, all of which are the subject matter of this novel legal action

  • The plaintiffs and members of the certified class are authors. Copyright registrations have been duly secured by the Plaintiffs and the class members for the literary works they authored and published.
  • The unconsented utilization of their copyrighted books for the purpose of training ChatGPT transpired, without exception. This unauthorized use of copyrighted books transpired during the training stages of ChatGPT.

Nature of the Action

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

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

Nature of the Action

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

Claims

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

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs seek injunctive redress and pecuniary indemnities.

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

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

Nature of the Action

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

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

Claims

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

Relief sought

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the allegations against OpenAI?

OpenAI is being sued based on some similar allegations: 

  • copyright infringement
  • privacy violations
  • libel 

What could be the potential impact of these legal actions?

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

How are the plaintiffs seeking to address these situations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What legal principles are being invoked in these lawsuits?

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

What legal challenges are posed by AI-generated content?

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

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

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

Jonathan Gillham

Founder / CEO of Originality.ai I have been involved in the SEO and Content Marketing world for over a decade. My career started with a portfolio of content sites, recently I sold 2 content marketing agencies and I am the Co-Founder of MotionInvest.com, the leading place to buy and sell content websites. Through these experiences I understand what web publishers need when it comes to verifying content is original. I am not For or Against AI content, I think it has a place in everyones content strategy. However, I believe you as the publisher should be the one making the decision on when to use AI content. Our Originality checking tool has been built with serious web publishers in mind!

More From The Blog

Al Content Detector & Plagiarism Checker for Marketers and Writers

Use our leading tools to ensure you can hit publish with integrity!