Hundreds of U.S. Newspapers Sue OpenAI and Microsoft Over the Use of Journalistic Content
Nearly 400 local and regional newspapers in the United States have filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. Publishers accuse the technology companies of using journalistic materials to train artificial intelligence models, including ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, without permission or compensation. This is no longer just another legal conflict between the media and the technology sector. It is about a much broader question: how much journalistic content is worth in the age of artificial intelligence and who should benefit from the work of newsrooms if their materials become part of AI systems’ training.
Time for Action analyzed why this lawsuit may become important for the entire media market, what exactly OpenAI and Microsoft are accused of, and why local newspapers are speaking not only about copyright, but also about a threat to the survival of local journalism. According to Bloomberg, publishers claim that the companies used their materials without permission to train large language models. The lawsuit states that newspaper websites were allegedly scanned, articles were copied to servers, and then this body of texts was used to develop AI products. The plaintiffs describe this as a systematic practice that, in their view, allowed technology companies to gain access to a valuable journalistic product without agreement from the rights holders.
“systematically and secretly”
This is how the lawsuit describes the way in which, according to the publishers, the companies worked with media materials.
The newspapers’ main claim is not only about the fact that the texts were used. Publishers also state that AI systems can reproduce parts of these materials in responses to users without paying media companies compensation. For newsrooms, this is a matter of principle: they spent years investing money, time, and journalists’ work into creating materials, some of which were placed behind paid subscriptions, and now they believe this product was used without permission. Two different logics collide in this conflict. Technology companies need large volumes of quality text to train models. Journalism produces exactly that kind of material: structured, verified, connected to real events, people, documents, local problems, and public processes. For AI, this is a valuable base. For media, it is the result of expensive editorial work. The publishers’ position is clear: if journalists collect information, verify facts, work with sources, edit texts, and bear responsibility before their audience, then the use of this product in commercial AI systems should not be free. Otherwise, a dangerous model emerges: some create content at their own expense, while others use it to develop expensive technology products. OpenAI rejects such claims through the argument of fair use. Company representative Drew Pusateri said that OpenAI’s models work with publicly available data and promote innovation.
“promote innovation, learn from publicly available data, and are grounded in the principle of fair use”
This is one of the central legal lines in such disputes. AI developers insist that training models on public data may fall under the principle of fair use. Publishers, on the contrary, argue that mass use of protected materials without permission violates their rights and undermines the economic foundation of newsrooms.
Microsoft had not commented on the new lawsuit at the time of Bloomberg’s publication. But the company’s participation in the case is important, because it concerns not only ChatGPT, but also Microsoft Copilot. This shows that the media’s claims are aimed not only at one AI company, but at a broader model in which journalistic materials may have become part of technology services without a direct agreement with newsrooms. This case sounds especially sharp because of the participation of local and regional newspapers. For American journalism, local publications have a separate significance. They write about city councils, schools, courts, local businesses, taxes, municipal problems, police, elections, and the life of communities. These are the newsrooms that often notice first what does not make it into large national media.
But local newspapers have been working under difficult conditions for many years. Advertising revenues are shrinking, readers are moving to digital platforms, newsrooms are being cut, and some local media are closing. If, in this situation, their content is used to train AI without payment, publishers see this not just as a copyright violation. They see it as another blow to a model that is already losing financial stability. The publishers’ lawyer and former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin called this lawsuit the largest legal initiative by local newspapers against artificial intelligence developers. According to him, local media remain one of the most important sources of information for Americans, while the current model of AI development may put them at risk of disappearing. The plaintiffs formulate the risk even more sharply. They state that if companies developing AI are not held accountable for using journalistic content, the current technology boom could become fatal for local journalism.
“a death sentence for local journalism”
This phrase shows why the lawsuit has broader significance than an ordinary dispute over texts. For publishers, the question stands this way: if artificial intelligence learns from journalism, generates answers based on it, and at the same time does not support those who create primary information, then the system gradually exhausts its own source of data. This is the paradox of AI development in the media sphere. Technologies become better thanks to large amounts of quality human content. But if the producers of this content do not receive compensation, they have fewer resources for journalism. As a result, not only the media business may suffer, but also the quality of the information space. The lawsuit by local newspapers against OpenAI and Microsoft is not isolated. Earlier, other media and information companies had already made claims over the use of materials without permission, including CNN, Reddit, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster. Such cases demonstrate a broader trend: authors, publishers, and owners of information resources are increasingly demanding that rules be defined for the AI industry.
A separate direction of such disputes is connected to books. In December 2025, The New York Times journalist and author of the book Bad Blood, John Carreyrou, filed a lawsuit in a federal court in California against a number of technology companies. He accused them of illegally using copyrighted books to train chatbots. The defendants in that case included xAI, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Perplexity. Five other writers joined the lawsuit together with Carreyrou. All these cases are united by one question can technology companies use someone else’s protected content to train AI without direct permission if they later create commercial products on that basis.
For media, the answer is obvious: if journalistic content has value for AI companies, this value must be recognized financially or legally. For the technology sector, the situation is more complicated: limiting access to data may affect the speed of model development, the cost of training, and the very working model of many AI services. That is why such lawsuits may have long-term consequences. They can influence how licensing agreements between media and technology companies are formed, whether publishers receive the right to compensation, which materials can be used to train models, and where the line will be drawn between fair use and copyright infringement. For local journalism, this is also a fight for the right to remain economically necessary. Local newspapers do not have the resources of large national media groups, but they do work that is difficult to replace with automated systems: they are present on the ground, know communities, verify local facts, write about problems that may remain invisible without them.
If such newsrooms disappear, AI will not be able to simply fill the void. A model can retell already created information, but it cannot go to a local council meeting by itself, ask a question to an official, check documents, speak with residents, and see a problem in a specific community. That is why the price of journalistic content is not only a question of payment for texts. It is a question of the existence of the infrastructure that produces verified information. The lawsuit by nearly 400 newspapers against OpenAI and Microsoft shows that the conflict between media and the AI industry is entering a new phase. Earlier, the discussion often sounded theoretical: whether artificial intelligence has the right to learn from public materials. Now this question is turning into concrete court cases, financial claims, and a demand to define the limits of responsibility. The decision in such disputes will affect what the future model of coexistence between journalism and artificial intelligence will look like. One option is that AI companies will continue to refer to fair use, while media will be forced to defend their rights in court. Another is that the market will gradually move toward licensing, agreements, and a system of compensation for the use of quality editorial content. For the reader, this conflict may seem distant, but its consequences concern everyone who uses news and AI services. If journalism loses money, newsrooms are cut. If newsrooms are cut, fewer people verify facts. If less verified information is created locally, the base from which technology systems will draw knowledge in the future also becomes weaker.
Therefore, this case is not only about OpenAI, Microsoft, and hundreds of American newspapers. It is about whether journalistic content will have real value in the economy of artificial intelligence. And whether the technological breakthrough will become too expensive for those who create the information on which it rests every day.
About the Author
Related posts:
OpenAI Moves Into Health: How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Digital Medicine 
Artificial Intelligence and Layoffs: How Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel Reshape Work 
Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine: Why It Is Not a Must-Have Today but Will Shape Careers Tomorrow 
Artificial Intelligence at DTEK: How Big Business Implements AI in Practice
