NYT To Start Searching Deleted ChatGPT Logs After Beating OpenAI In Court (arstechnica.com) 29
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week, OpenAI raised objections in court, hoping to overturn a court order requiring the AI company to retain all ChatGPT logs "indefinitely," including deleted and temporary chats. But Sidney Stein, the US district judge reviewing OpenAI's request, immediately denied OpenAI's objections. He was seemingly unmoved by the company's claims that the order forced OpenAI to abandon "long-standing privacy norms" and weaken privacy protections that users expect based on ChatGPT's terms of service. Rather, Stein suggested that OpenAI's user agreement specified that their data could be retained as part of a legal process, which Stein said is exactly what is happening now.
The order was issued by magistrate judge Ona Wang just days after news organizations, led by The New York Times, requested it. The news plaintiffs claimed the order was urgently needed to preserve potential evidence in their copyright case, alleging that ChatGPT users are likely to delete chats where they attempted to use the chatbot to skirt paywalls to access news content. A spokesperson told Ars that OpenAI plans to "keep fighting" the order, but the ChatGPT maker seems to have few options left. They could possibly petition the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a rarely granted emergency order that could intervene to block Wang's order, but the appeals court would have to consider Wang's order an extraordinary abuse of discretion for OpenAI to win that fight.
In the meantime, OpenAI is negotiating a process that will allow news plaintiffs to search through the retained data. Perhaps the sooner that process begins, the sooner the data will be deleted. And that possibility puts OpenAI in the difficult position of having to choose between either caving to some data collection to stop retaining data as soon as possible or prolonging the fight over the order and potentially putting more users' private conversations at risk of exposure through litigation or, worse, a data breach. [...]
Both sides are negotiating the exact process for searching through the chat logs, with both parties seemingly hoping to minimize the amount of time the chat logs will be preserved. For OpenAI, sharing the logs risks revealing instances of infringing outputs that could further spike damages in the case. The logs could also expose how often outputs attribute misinformation to news plaintiffs. But for news plaintiffs, accessing the logs is not considered key to their case -- perhaps providing additional examples of copying -- but could help news organizations argue that ChatGPT dilutes the market for their content. That could weigh against the fair use argument, as a judge opined in a recent ruling that evidence of market dilution could tip an AI copyright case in favor of plaintiffs.
The order was issued by magistrate judge Ona Wang just days after news organizations, led by The New York Times, requested it. The news plaintiffs claimed the order was urgently needed to preserve potential evidence in their copyright case, alleging that ChatGPT users are likely to delete chats where they attempted to use the chatbot to skirt paywalls to access news content. A spokesperson told Ars that OpenAI plans to "keep fighting" the order, but the ChatGPT maker seems to have few options left. They could possibly petition the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a rarely granted emergency order that could intervene to block Wang's order, but the appeals court would have to consider Wang's order an extraordinary abuse of discretion for OpenAI to win that fight.
In the meantime, OpenAI is negotiating a process that will allow news plaintiffs to search through the retained data. Perhaps the sooner that process begins, the sooner the data will be deleted. And that possibility puts OpenAI in the difficult position of having to choose between either caving to some data collection to stop retaining data as soon as possible or prolonging the fight over the order and potentially putting more users' private conversations at risk of exposure through litigation or, worse, a data breach. [...]
Both sides are negotiating the exact process for searching through the chat logs, with both parties seemingly hoping to minimize the amount of time the chat logs will be preserved. For OpenAI, sharing the logs risks revealing instances of infringing outputs that could further spike damages in the case. The logs could also expose how often outputs attribute misinformation to news plaintiffs. But for news plaintiffs, accessing the logs is not considered key to their case -- perhaps providing additional examples of copying -- but could help news organizations argue that ChatGPT dilutes the market for their content. That could weigh against the fair use argument, as a judge opined in a recent ruling that evidence of market dilution could tip an AI copyright case in favor of plaintiffs.
Legally mandated data retention (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm surprised OpenAI tried to fight this one.
What the NYT was asking for is totally normal and completely standard. Your company is not allowed to purge data that could prove the other party's case.
This shouldn't have even been a thing. I guess the OpenAI lawyers were juicing their bill or the tech bros think they're so special that commonly applied standards and laws that apply to everyone else don't apply to them because "AI!!!!".
Re: (Score:2)
What the NYT was asking for is totally normal and completely standard. Your company is not allowed to purge data that could prove the other party's case.
In addition, if they do it anyways (maybe accidently), something called adverse inference kicks in, whereby the Judge has the discretion to draw the conclusion that the evidence that has been destroyed WOULD have been favorable to the party that did not destroy it.
Re:Legally mandated data retention (Score:4, Insightful)
And there's nothing in US law, what-so-ever, that requires them keep logs in the first place. IDK why they open themselves up to this type of liability when they don't have have to, at all.
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:2)
Like, who isn't drooling over gathering data these days ?
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are pretty far off-base. This is not some weird self-own. OpenAI retaining logs isn’t the issue. The issue is a sweeping preservation order issued before a meaningful challenge, based on claims from a publisher with a legit paywall axe to grind.
And there's nothing in US law, what-so-ever, that requires them keep logs in the first place.
Just...no. The idea that there’s nothing in U.S. law requiring companies to retain logs is false—laughably false to anyone who's worked in infosec, healthcare IT, finance, or compliance. HIPAA, SOX, and CALEA are very real laws in the United
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:2)
Far be it that I would defend OpenAI, but the idea that third parties should be given access to troll thru customer data, is a bridge too far. LEOs would love to see what you're up to next.
Pro tip: don't use AI to plan your next crime.
Re: (Score:2)
the idea that third parties should be given access to troll thru customer data, is a bridge too far. LEOs would love to see what you're up to next.
I agree this feels odd with a private third party like NYT, but it's not new territory for law enforcement. If they get a search warrant, you better believe Google is going to hand over the logs of you searching for "how to get rid of a body".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:2)
also this whole lie by openai now being a bastion of privacy and responsible data handling assumed they were not storing all logs before anyway, which they certainly are.
New lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a CCPA or GDPR privacy lawsuit should be coming up next, since they aren't actually deleting personal data when requested, they are only pretending to delete it.
Nope. Such a lawsuit would be dismissed in toto—and in about as much time as it takes the judge to stop chuckling and pitch it into the nearest wastebasket. No hearing needed. Both GDPR and CCPA carve out explicit exceptions to the right of erasure for legal holds and pending litigation. Once a preservation order is in place, it overrides the normal deletion process. That’s not a loophole—it’s a cornerstone of cross-jurisdictional legal compliance.
Re: One evil company vs another (Score:1)
© 1990 â" 2025 Slashdot Media, LLC
Is paraphrasing copyright infringement? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are all legit concerns and questions.
I would answer that no, that's not what ChatGPT does.
I guess it's like comparing a person in the coast, with a fish rod, fishing for dinner versus a huge company throwing immense nets in the sea and catching tons and tons of fish for profit. They aren't - and shouldn't be treated the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I really appreciated your comment—every sentence echoes things I’ve had to work out for myself over the past several years. I wouldn't call it a struggle exactly, but it definitely took time and some deliberate thinking to reach the point where I could see large language models not as competitors, but as collaborators—extensions of how we already learn, teach, and create. The questions you’re asking are the right ones, and they deserve answers that respect both the law and the nuance
Legal discovery is a thing (Score:2)