Following a Supreme Court ruling limiting contributory infringement liability, The New York Times has moved to amend its lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI. The amended complaint alleges Microsoft actively encouraged OpenAI's use of NYT content by building a custom supercomputer designed to facilitate copyright infringement.
- NYT seeks to amend complaint to meet new Supreme Court contributory infringement standards
- Microsoft accused of building a bespoke supercomputer to enable OpenAI’s copyright violations
- NYT voluntarily drops two claims to focus on core infringement allegations
What happened
The New York Times filed a motion to amend its copyright infringement complaint against Microsoft and OpenAI. This move follows a Supreme Court decision that raised standards for proving contributory infringement, requiring plaintiffs to show intentional inducement of illegal conduct. The NYT’s updated filing clarifies its claim that Microsoft did not merely provide cloud services but actively encouraged infringement by designing a powerful supercomputer tailored for training AI models on NYT content without permission.
In addition to refining its contributory infringement claim, the NYT has voluntarily dismissed two other claims related to contributory copyright infringement and trademark dilution against all defendants. Microsoft has described the amendment as a last effort to salvage the case after unfavorable precedent. Nevertheless, the NYT argues this amendment aligns with new law and discovery findings without delaying the case timeline or requiring additional evidence gathering.
Why it matters
This case highlights the evolving legal landscape for AI training data and copyright law, especially following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of Cox Communications over Sony. The ruling established that holding service providers liable for contributory infringement demands proof they actively encouraged infringement. The NYT’s amended complaint adapts to this standard, accusing Microsoft of designing a high-powered supercomputer specifically to assist OpenAI in using NYT’s journalistic works as training data without authorization.
The outcome could set significant precedent for companies providing technology infrastructure for AI development. If the court accepts the NYT's characterization of Microsoft’s supercomputer as an inducement to piracy, technology providers might face increased liability risks tied to how their systems are used. This could reverberate across the AI and publishing sectors, impacting how training data is sourced and how infrastructure is deployed.
What to watch next
Observers should monitor the court's decision on allowing the amendment and any subsequent rulings regarding Microsoft’s role in the alleged infringement. This could clarify how contributory infringement applies in cases where underlying technology is specially crafted for training AI models on copyrighted material. The case may also influence future licensing or copyright enforcement strategies within the AI industry.
Additionally, the broader litigation timeline and discovery outputs, including user session data from ChatGPT, could reveal further evidence of how AI outputs relate to original copyrighted content. This may impact the development of AI technologies and publisher practices worldwide as stakeholders respond to emerging legal interpretations and potential regulatory actions.