Publishers Seek Sanctions on OpenAI

On July 9, 2026, a group of news organizations including The New York Times (NYT) and the New York Daily News filed a motion asking a federal judge to sanction OpenAI in ongoing copyright litigation. The case centers on how OpenAI and Microsoft (MSFT) built AI technologies using large volumes of news articles. The new motion focuses not on liability but on how evidence has been handled during the discovery phase of the case.

The publishers argue that OpenAI refused to provide information they view as central to their claims. They say the evidence they seek is contained in OpenAI’s training datasets and ChatGPT output logs, which they contend would show how the systems were trained and how they use news content. The filing portrays these materials as essential to testing the publishers’ allegations about the use of their journalism in AI products.

In their sanctions request, the plaintiffs allege that OpenAI "chose obstruction" rather than producing datasets and logs in a usable form. They claim the company misrepresented its ability to search and preserve training data and chat records, which they say impeded their efforts to obtain a complete evidentiary record. The motion characterizes this conduct as “discovery misconduct” that warrants court intervention.

The news organizations are asking the court to impose monetary penalties and award attorneys’ fees related to the contested discovery. They also seek other relief, including measures that could affect how evidence is presented to a jury, such as special instructions about the missing data. The requested remedies are aimed at addressing what the plaintiffs describe as gaps in the record caused by OpenAI’s handling of the materials.

OpenAI has responded publicly that it will continue to defend user privacy and the principles of fair use as the litigation proceeds. The company’s stance highlights a tension between demands for detailed transparency about training data and logs and its stated commitments to protect the privacy of users interacting with its systems. The court will now consider whether the company’s discovery conduct warrants the sanctions sought by the publishers.

On the same date, separate reporting described a more active role by the U.S. government in its oversight of advanced AI models from leading developers such as OpenAI and Anthropic. Regulators are described as engaging with these firms on a case-by-case basis as increasingly powerful AI systems are deployed. Together, the legal dispute over evidence and the heightened government attention underscore the expanding legal and regulatory scrutiny surrounding frontier AI development.