Recommended Free Tools
On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected much of OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s effort to dismiss a consolidated group of newspaper copyright lawsuits that includes The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al. The ruling allowed central copyright claims to continue, but dismissed several other claims. It did not find that either company infringed copyright or decide whether AI training is fair use.
What the judge allowed to continue
The opinion addressed motions to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case No. 1:23-cv-11195 and related newspaper actions. At this stage, the question was whether the complaints plausibly alleged claims—not whether the plaintiffs had proved them. The April 4, 2025 opinion left several claims in the case.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Copyright Law | $147.80 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Copyright Law: Cases and Materials (v8.0) | $21.70 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Copyright Law of the United States: and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code | $10.32 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Copyright Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Copyright Handbook, The: What Every Writer Needs to Know | $37.99 | Buy on Amazon |
- Direct copyright infringement: The Times’ claims concerning alleged conduct from 2019 and 2020 survived OpenAI’s argument that those allegations fell outside the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period. The court declined to dismiss them at the pleading stage; it did not finally resolve the limitations defense.
- Contributory copyright infringement: The court denied the defendants’ requests to dismiss these claims. In general, this theory concerns alleged knowing and meaningful assistance in another party’s infringement. A business relationship alone does not establish liability, and the plaintiffs still must prove the applicable elements.
- Daily News trademark dilution: The court also allowed state and federal trademark-dilution claims in the Daily News action to proceed.
What the court dismissed
The ruling was mixed, not a decision to let every claim proceed unchanged. The court’s opinion and conclusion dismissed these theories:
| Claim | Result |
|---|---|
| Common-law unfair competition by misappropriation | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Center for Investigative Reporting “abridgment” claims | Dismissed with prejudice |
| The Times’ DMCA claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1) against OpenAI | Dismissed |
| Related § 1202(b)(1) claims against Microsoft | Dismissed |
| DMCA claims under § 1202(b)(3) against OpenAI and Microsoft | Dismissed without prejudice |
“With prejudice” generally means a claim cannot be repleaded in the same action. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not necessarily bar a legally sufficient amended claim. Those labels describe the procedural effect of the dismissals; they do not determine the merits of claims that remain.
#1 Best Overall
What the publishers allege
The Times alleges that OpenAI used its journalism in developing and training generative-AI systems and that ChatGPT can sometimes reproduce or closely summarize Times content. The Times also alleges that Microsoft bears responsibility because of its relationship with OpenAI, provision of computing infrastructure, and incorporation of OpenAI technology into Microsoft products. These are allegations, not findings that copying occurred or that either company is liable. The opinion’s background discussion recounts the pleaded claims in deciding the motions.
Why Microsoft remains in the case
The court did not conclude that Microsoft’s partnership or infrastructure role automatically insulated it from the litigation. It allowed the contributory-infringement theories to proceed, leaving the plaintiffs an opportunity to develop their allegations and evidence. That is different from finding that Microsoft knew of or materially contributed to infringement.
The court separately dismissed the Microsoft-related claims under DMCA § 1202(b)(1). It found the pleadings did not sufficiently allege that Microsoft itself removed copyright-management information. The opinion discussed Microsoft’s OpenAI partnership and cloud-computing infrastructure but did not treat those facts, as pleaded, as enough to establish the specific conduct required by that DMCA provision.
What the ruling did not decide about fair use
The April 2025 opinion was not a final ruling on whether AI training is fair use, whether particular model outputs infringe, or whether the plaintiffs suffered legally compensable market harm. Those questions can involve different evidence and legal analysis. The case raises distinct issues, including:
Rank #3
- Training use: whether copying works into datasets to develop models is protected under copyright law.
- Outputs: whether generated responses reproduce or distribute protected expression.
- Intermediate copying: whether copies made during model development are actionable.
- Market effects: whether AI products substitute for publishers’ journalism or otherwise harm relevant markets.
The motion-to-dismiss ruling assessed whether the pleaded claims could proceed; it did not settle those questions or determine damages.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Where the litigation stands
The litigation has continued through discovery and related procedural disputes. The parties have contested access to training-data evidence, user conversations, product information, engagement metrics, and other materials. OpenAI says that it has complied with court orders while seeking privacy protections, de-identification, and limits on access to ChatGPT conversation data; those are the company’s stated positions. Its account appears on OpenAI’s litigation fact page.
Rank #4
In July 2026, the Associated Press reported that publisher plaintiffs sought sanctions against OpenAI, alleging discovery misconduct involving evidence relevant to the case. OpenAI disputes the plaintiffs’ characterization. The request and allegations are part of ongoing litigation, not established findings of misconduct. The Associated Press report covers the dispute; related filings can be tracked on the docket mirror.
The surviving claims may continue through discovery and further motions, and the case could still be resolved without trial. The April 2025 decision itself did not set a final outcome.
Best Value
Why the case matters beyond the parties
For publishers and other copyright owners, the surviving claims mean the parties can continue testing how evidence about training, outputs, and alleged assistance bears on copyright liability. For AI developers and companies that provide infrastructure or incorporate AI tools into products, the decision illustrates that different theories can rise or fall on different allegations: a contributory-infringement claim may survive while a claim under a specific DMCA provision is dismissed for insufficiently specific allegations.
For readers, the key distinction is between a case being allowed to proceed and a court deciding who is right. The opinion preserved important claims for later litigation while removing others; it did not announce a general rule that AI training is unlawful or that publishers have already proved infringement.
Quick Recap
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.
