Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Six Canadian news organizations sued OpenAI in Ontario on November 28, 2024, alleging that it used their journalism without permission to develop and train AI systems. On November 7, 2025, an Ontario court ruled that the case could proceed there. That was a decision about where the dispute may be heard—not a finding that OpenAI infringed copyright or owes money.
Who sued OpenAI?
The plaintiffs filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. They are six principal news organizations or corporate groups:
- Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
- Metroland Media Group Ltd.
- Postmedia Network Inc. and related entities
- The Globe and Mail Inc.
- Entreprises Presse Canadienne Inc., also known as The Canadian Press
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation / Société Radio-Canada
The claim also identifies publications, websites and collections of works connected to these companies. Those titles and properties are not all separate plaintiffs. The filing lists millions of owned or licensed works, but those figures are the publishers’ estimates of their catalogues—not proof that OpenAI used every listed work.
What do the publishers allege?
The publishers allege that OpenAI copied or used their content in developing and training GPT models, scraped material from their websites, and benefited commercially without permission or compensation. Their claims include copyright infringement, circumvention of technological protection measures, breach of website terms of use and unjust enrichment. These are allegations in a lawsuit, not findings of fact.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
The claim points to restrictions the publishers say they used, including paywalls, account or subscription limits, terms of use and web-crawling exclusion protocols such as the Robot Exclusion Protocol. Whether a particular restriction was bypassed, whether it qualifies as a protected technological measure under Canadian law, and what legal effect it has are questions the case has not resolved. A robots.txt instruction alone does not establish copyright infringement.
It is also important to distinguish the stages of alleged AI use. Acquiring or scraping an article, processing copies during training, and producing a response that reproduces protected expression are different factual and legal questions. The claim does not establish that every listed article was used, that articles remain stored in a model, or that ChatGPT can retrieve each article in full.
What are the publishers seeking?
The statement of claim requests several forms of relief, including damages, an accounting of profits or disgorgement, damages related to the contract and unjust-enrichment claims, punitive or exemplary damages, interest and legal costs. It also seeks permanent and broader injunctions against further alleged infringement or unauthorized use.
Alternatively, the publishers ask for statutory damages of up to C$20,000 per work, or another amount the court considers just. That is a requested measure, not an award, a guaranteed amount for each article or an established valuation of the lawsuit. Whether statutory damages or any other remedy is available—and how it would be calculated—depends on the law and the facts ultimately established.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
Why did OpenAI challenge Ontario’s jurisdiction?
OpenAI argued that the dispute should be heard in the United States. Its position was that it is headquartered in San Francisco, relevant entities were formed under Delaware law, and the crawling and model-training conduct alleged by the publishers took place outside Ontario. It also disputed applying Canadian copyright law to conduct it characterized as extraterritorial.
The publishers argued that Ontario has a substantial connection to the dispute because the companies, journalists, works, business operations and alleged harm are connected to Ontario and Canada. The competing arguments raise a central question for internet-based disputes: when a digital service operates across borders, which courts may hear claims about its conduct and effects?
Global News reported on the jurisdiction arguments.
What did the Ontario court decide?
On November 7, 2025, the Ontario court rejected OpenAI’s effort to stop the action from proceeding in Ontario. The ruling allows the claims to be heard there; it does not decide whether OpenAI copied protected works unlawfully, breached contracts, circumvented technical measures or owes damages.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
Status: The publishers cleared a procedural hurdle over the forum. They have not thereby won the underlying copyright dispute. The available materials describe the case as unresolved on the merits.
See the jurisdiction-motion materials and CityNews’ report on the ruling.
What remains to be decided?
The jurisdiction ruling does not settle the factual or legal questions at the heart of the case. Among the issues the litigation may address are:
- What publisher material OpenAI obtained and how it was used in developing or training its systems.
- Whether any copying was authorized or otherwise permitted under Canadian law.
- Whether particular paywalls, terms or technical measures were bypassed and what legal protections apply to them.
- Whether the publishers’ website terms formed enforceable contracts with the relevant OpenAI entities.
- Whether the plaintiffs can establish loss or another basis for the remedies they seek.
OpenAI’s general public position in related journalism and copyright debates is that it collaborates with news organizations, considers training on copyrighted material fair use under U.S. law, offers an opt-out mechanism and works to reduce verbatim “regurgitation.” That statement is not a complete account of its defence in this Canadian case. U.S. fair-use doctrine is not interchangeable with Canadian copyright law.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11OpenAI’s public statement on journalism describes its broader position.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the case matters beyond these publishers
The dispute may help define how Canadian courts address AI services that operate across borders, including whether claims tied to digital activity and alleged Canadian harm can be litigated in Canada. If the case reaches the merits, it could also clarify how copyright, website terms and technical barriers apply to the collection and use of content for AI development.
For publishers and creators, the outcome may inform negotiations over licensing and the value of original work. For AI companies, it may shape the legal risks of collecting online material and the importance of permission, restrictions and documentation. For readers, the case concerns how the economics of journalism interact with products that can answer questions using information drawn from the web.
The proceedings have also touched on access to confidential evidence and open-court concerns, including the participation of journalists affiliated with plaintiff organizations in opposing sealing requests. That is a separate transparency issue; it does not determine the merits of the publishers’ claims. The Ontario court decision addresses those procedural issues.
Quick Recap
Key legal terms
- Jurisdiction: A court’s authority to hear and decide a dispute.
- Technological protection measure: A technical measure that may receive protection under copyright law; whether the publishers’ cited measures qualify is contested.
- Unjust enrichment: A claim that one party received a benefit at another’s expense without a legal basis for keeping it.
- Disgorgement or accounting of profits: A remedy seeking profits attributable to alleged wrongdoing, distinct from compensation for a plaintiff’s loss.
- Statutory damages: A legislated damages option whose availability and amount depend on legal requirements; the figure requested in a pleading is not an award.
- Injunction: A court order requiring a party to do or stop doing something.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
