The Seattle Times and Newsday have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, becoming the latest news organizations to take the AI industry to court over the unauthorized use of journalism in training data. The two papers allege that OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot were trained on their copyrighted articles and now frequently reproduce passages from those articles, often verbatim, in response to user queries without providing adequate compensation or consent.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

According to court documents and statements from the publishers, the lawsuit focuses on two primary harms. First, the newspapers argue that OpenAI and Microsoft scraped their websites, including paywalled content, to build large language models without obtaining a license. Second, they claim that the AI systems now serve as direct competitors, generating answers that include substantial excerpts from the newspapers' reporting. This not only violates copyright law but also undermines the business model of local journalism, where access to reporting is often sold through subscriptions.

"The Seattle Times and Newsday say OpenAI and Microsoft used their journalism as training data for AI models without permission and often reproduce passages from their reporting in response to user queries," reported The Verge, citing the complaint.

The complaints also name Microsoft as a defendant because its Copilot assistant is built on OpenAI's underlying technology. Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and has integrated its models across Windows, Office, and its Bing search engine. By including Microsoft, the newspapers are signaling that they view both the model creator and the distributors as responsible for the alleged infringement.

An Escalating Legal Campaign

This lawsuit is not an isolated action but part of a growing wave of litigation against AI developers by content owners. The New York Times filed a landmark suit against OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023, claiming millions of copyrighted articles were used to train GPT models. Since then, publishers such as Ziff Davis, Merriam-Webster, and Encyclopedia Britannica have filed similar complaints. Most notably, a coalition of nearly 400 local newspapers across the United States, largely owned by Alden Global Capital, sued both companies in April 2024. The Seattle Times and Newsday now join that broader movement, though they filed their own separate action.

• The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging "unlawful copying and use of The Times's uniquely valuable works."
• Ziff Davis, which owns tech publications including Mashable and PC Mag, filed suit in 2024.
• Merriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica have also taken legal action.
• A coalition of nearly 400 local newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News, sued in April 2024.

The repeated legal challenges have begun to shape industry behavior. OpenAI has struck licensing deals with major media outlets like the Associated Press, Axel Springer, and Le Monde, acknowledging that some scale of content licensing is necessary. However, many smaller and regional publishers believe they have been left out of those negotiations.

Why Local News Is Fighting Back

For local newspapers, the stakes are particularly high. The Seattle Times, a Pulitzer Prize-winning publication, and Newsday, a major Long Island paper, rely on subscription revenue and digital advertising. Their content requires significant resources to produce—reporters on the ground, editors, fact-checking, and legal review. When an AI system reproduces the core of their reporting in an answer, it can draw traffic away from their websites and undercut their ability to monetize their work.

In an ideal scenario, the publishers argue that AI companies should pay a fair price for using their archives, just as they would pay for wire services or licensed photographs. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how copyrighted news content is treated in the age of generative AI.

Critics of the lawsuit, including some technology analysts, counter that AI training on publicly available web content falls under the fair use doctrine, allowing transformative use without explicit permission. They point out that search engines have long indexed and displayed snippets from news articles, creating similar tensions that were eventually resolved. OpenAI has also argued that it uses publicly available data in ways that are lawful, and that it attempts to prevent ChatGPT from reproducing copyrighted material at length.

Differing Perspectives in Coverage

Coverage of the lawsuit across media outlets highlights different angles. Technology-focused publications like The Verge emphasize the growing roster of plaintiffs and the potential impact on the AI industry's legal landscape. Local news sources, naturally, center on the defense of editorial independence and the economic pressures facing newspapers. Media analysts note that the outcome of these cases, likely to wend their way through appellate courts for years, will determine whether AI companies are permitted to train on the world's written knowledge without paying creators, or whether they will face a system of compulsory licensing akin to other music and publishing royalties.

What's Next

The lawsuit has been filed in a U.S. federal court (though the specific venue was not stated in early reports). Legal experts expect OpenAI and Microsoft to file motions to dismiss, arguing that the use of copyrighted material for training is 'transformative' and that the models' outputs are not direct copies. The case will likely be heard alongside other related actions, possibly consolidated or cited as precedent.

For now, the two newspapers are seeking damages and an injunction that would prohibit unauthorized use of their content. In a statement to media, the Seattle Times said it hopes the legal action will "ensure commercial accountability and fairness" in how AI tools build on the work of journalists.

As the battle between the press and the tech industry intensifies, this lawsuit represents another milestone in the effort to define the rules of the AI age. It is a contest that will shape not only the future of news publishing but also the fundamental relationship between information creators and the machines that consume it.