NYT and Other News Outlets Ask Judge to Sanction OpenAI Over Evidence Tampering Claims

The New York Times alleges OpenAI concealed billions of logs and misrepresented its ability to search training data in ongoing copyright litigation.

The New York Times, the Daily News, and other media outlets have formally asked a federal judge to impose sanctions on OpenAI, escalating their ongoing copyright lawsuit over the use of news content to train AI models. The outlets have accused OpenAI of hiding billions of logs and falsely claiming it could not search its own training data — allegations that, if substantiated, could constitute spoliation of evidence or discovery misconduct. The move to seek sanctions represents a significant escalation, as courts can respond to such motions with penalties, adverse jury instructions, or other consequences against the offending party. The NYT originally filed its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023, alleging that millions of its articles were used without permission to train ChatGPT and other AI models. The case is considered one of the highest-profile legal battles over whether AI companies must obtain licenses before training on copyrighted material, with broad implications for a struggling news industry.

Why it matters

Evidence-tampering or discovery misconduct allegations, if proven, could significantly damage OpenAI's legal standing and expose the company to sanctions beyond the core copyright claims. The outcome of this case could also set a precedent for how AI companies must handle training data in litigation.

What's next

Watch for a court ruling on any formal motion for sanctions or discovery orders related to the NYT's misconduct allegations.

Key facts

• The NYT alleges OpenAI hid billions of logs relevant to the copyright lawsuit
• The NYT claims OpenAI falsely represented to the court that it could not search its training data
• The original copyright lawsuit was filed by the NYT against OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023
• The lawsuit centers on whether millions of NYT articles were used without permission to train ChatGPT
• Both TechCrunch and Ars Technica reported on the allegations, though no source body text was available

Bias & framing notes

Both sources — TechCrunch and Ars Technica — appear to frame the story from the NYT's perspective as the accusing party. The Ars Technica headline uses more vivid, assertive language ('faked inability') while TechCrunch's is more neutral ('hid evidence'). Critically, no source body text was available, so the specific factual basis for these claims cannot be fully verified from the provided material. OpenAI's response or denial, if any, is unknown from these sources.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week