Newspaper Group Seeks Sanctions Against OpenAI: Accused of Concealing Copyright Search Capabilities
Taylor Wilson
A newspaper coalition led by The New York Times filed a motion on July 9 in Manhattan federal court seeking sanctions against OpenAI, alleging the company lied about its ability to search copyrighted material inside its large language models — and deleted billions of related chat logs. This means → the copyright battle is escalating from 'did you infringe?' to 'did you deceive the court?' — a far more damaging question.
What is OpenAI accused of lying about?
OpenAI previously told the court it could not search for copyrighted material within its large language models — implying there was no way to check whether ChatGPT used specific articles.
But evidence filed by the plaintiffs shows OpenAI conducted exactly such searches before the first lawsuit was even filed; an OpenAI employee confirmed in testimony that the company "searched plaintiff content multiple times."
In plain terms = OpenAI's problem is not that it "couldn't do it" — it's that it did it and said it couldn't. Those are two very different things.
What does deleting chat logs mean?
The coalition also alleges OpenAI deleted billions of relevant ChatGPT conversation logs or rendered them unsearchable.
This means → if those logs could prove ChatGPT produced copyrighted content at scale, deleting them is not "data management" — it is potential evidence destruction.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to rule that the deleted chat logs prove infringement, and to order OpenAI to pay attorneys' fees.
How far has the lawsuit escalated?
The case was first filed by The New York Times in 2023, alleging OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of articles without permission to train ChatGPT's underlying models.
This sanctions motion shifts the battlefield from "substantive infringement" to "procedural integrity" — in plain terms = from "did you steal my articles?" to "did you lie to the judge?"
This reflects a strategic escalation: if the court finds OpenAI engaged in obstruction of justice, it would materially alter the trajectory of this case — and set a direct precedent for every other copyright suit against AI companies.
What are the parties saying?
Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The New York Times, said in a statement: "For more than two years, OpenAI has lied to The New York Times, the Daily News plaintiffs, the public, and the court."
He noted that OpenAI claimed searching for copyrighted content was "infeasible, overly burdensome, and an invasion of user privacy" — while concealing the fact that it had already performed such searches.
An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to the sanctions motion.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.