Blab AI
Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over Copyright Infringement
The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), the nonprofit publisher of Mother Jones and Reveal, filed a federal copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and its largest shareholder, Microsoft, on June 27 2024. The suit alleges that the two companies used CIR’s copyrighted content without permission or payment to train their generative‑AI models.
CIR’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, lists more than 200 pieces of journalism produced by the organization over the past five decades. According to the filing, OpenAI and Microsoft incorporated the material into the training data for their large‑language models, including ChatGPT, without obtaining licenses or providing compensation. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction to stop further use of the content, and a declaration that the use was infringing.
The filing follows a broader wave of copyright actions against AI firms. In 2023 and 2024, OpenAI faced similar lawsuits from The New York Times and other media outlets, all claiming that the company used copyrighted text to train its models. Those cases have highlighted the tension between the rapid development of generative AI and existing copyright law.
OpenAI, founded in 2015 as a nonprofit research organization, became a for‑profit subsidiary in 2019 and was restructured into a public‑benefit corporation in 2025. The company’s flagship product, ChatGPT, launched in November 2022 and quickly attracted millions of users. Microsoft, which invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and provides Azure cloud services, has been a key partner in scaling the technology.
The lawsuit is part of a growing debate about how copyrighted works are used to train AI systems. CIR’s complaint argues that the use of its content was not covered by fair‑use defenses because the material was reproduced in a form that could be accessed by the public through the AI models. The suit also requests that the court order OpenAI and Microsoft to cease using the material and to provide a full audit of all content incorporated into their training datasets.
The timing of the lawsuit coincides with a broader policy conversation about AI regulation. In October 2025, journalist Karen Hao hosted a podcast episode of More To The Story in which she discussed the risks of AI’s rapid expansion, the Trump administration’s push for deregulation, and the potential for AI to destabilize democratic institutions. The episode, which aired in October 2025, highlighted concerns that the concentration of resources and influence in a few tech firms could undermine public trust.
President Donald Trump’s administration has issued executive orders aimed at “dismantling unnecessary regulatory barriers” to AI development. The orders, announced in early 2025, call for the creation of an AI action plan and have been described by some analysts as a move toward minimal regulatory oversight. CIR’s lawsuit can be seen as a counter‑balance, asserting that the unchecked use of copyrighted material may have legal and ethical consequences.
OpenAI’s leadership has faced internal turbulence in recent years. In November 2023, the company’s board removed CEO Sam Altman, only to reinstate him five days later after a board reconstruction. The organization has also lost a significant portion of its safety research staff, according to internal reports, raising questions about its commitment to responsible AI development.
The outcome of CIR’s lawsuit will likely influence how AI companies source training data and how the legal system interprets copyright in the context of machine learning. If the court rules in CIR’s favor, it could compel AI firms to obtain licenses for copyrighted works or to develop new methods of data acquisition that respect intellectual‑property rights.
At present, the case is pending, and no settlement has been announced. OpenAI and Microsoft have not yet responded publicly to the complaint. The legal proceedings will continue to be watched closely by the AI industry, media organizations, and policymakers.
The lawsuit underscores the growing intersection of technology, law, and journalism. As generative AI systems become more pervasive, the question of how they use existing content will remain a central issue for regulators, creators, and the public.
CIR’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, lists more than 200 pieces of journalism produced by the organization over the past five decades. According to the filing, OpenAI and Microsoft incorporated the material into the training data for their large‑language models, including ChatGPT, without obtaining licenses or providing compensation. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction to stop further use of the content, and a declaration that the use was infringing.
The filing follows a broader wave of copyright actions against AI firms. In 2023 and 2024, OpenAI faced similar lawsuits from The New York Times and other media outlets, all claiming that the company used copyrighted text to train its models. Those cases have highlighted the tension between the rapid development of generative AI and existing copyright law.
OpenAI, founded in 2015 as a nonprofit research organization, became a for‑profit subsidiary in 2019 and was restructured into a public‑benefit corporation in 2025. The company’s flagship product, ChatGPT, launched in November 2022 and quickly attracted millions of users. Microsoft, which invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and provides Azure cloud services, has been a key partner in scaling the technology.
The lawsuit is part of a growing debate about how copyrighted works are used to train AI systems. CIR’s complaint argues that the use of its content was not covered by fair‑use defenses because the material was reproduced in a form that could be accessed by the public through the AI models. The suit also requests that the court order OpenAI and Microsoft to cease using the material and to provide a full audit of all content incorporated into their training datasets.
The timing of the lawsuit coincides with a broader policy conversation about AI regulation. In October 2025, journalist Karen Hao hosted a podcast episode of More To The Story in which she discussed the risks of AI’s rapid expansion, the Trump administration’s push for deregulation, and the potential for AI to destabilize democratic institutions. The episode, which aired in October 2025, highlighted concerns that the concentration of resources and influence in a few tech firms could undermine public trust.
President Donald Trump’s administration has issued executive orders aimed at “dismantling unnecessary regulatory barriers” to AI development. The orders, announced in early 2025, call for the creation of an AI action plan and have been described by some analysts as a move toward minimal regulatory oversight. CIR’s lawsuit can be seen as a counter‑balance, asserting that the unchecked use of copyrighted material may have legal and ethical consequences.
OpenAI’s leadership has faced internal turbulence in recent years. In November 2023, the company’s board removed CEO Sam Altman, only to reinstate him five days later after a board reconstruction. The organization has also lost a significant portion of its safety research staff, according to internal reports, raising questions about its commitment to responsible AI development.
The outcome of CIR’s lawsuit will likely influence how AI companies source training data and how the legal system interprets copyright in the context of machine learning. If the court rules in CIR’s favor, it could compel AI firms to obtain licenses for copyrighted works or to develop new methods of data acquisition that respect intellectual‑property rights.
At present, the case is pending, and no settlement has been announced. OpenAI and Microsoft have not yet responded publicly to the complaint. The legal proceedings will continue to be watched closely by the AI industry, media organizations, and policymakers.
The lawsuit underscores the growing intersection of technology, law, and journalism. As generative AI systems become more pervasive, the question of how they use existing content will remain a central issue for regulators, creators, and the public.
