TLDRocket
Sign in

How we’re responding to The New York Times’ data demands in order to protect user privacy

OpenAI

NYT wants a court to force OpenAI to save all ChatGPT and API chats forever for a lawsuit. OpenAI's fighting back, saying it wrecks the privacy promises it made to users.

Based on reporting by OpenAI — read the original for the full story.

Summary, retelling and take written by AI under human oversight; images are AI-generated illustrations. How we work · Report an error

OpenAI is pushing back against a court order tied to its ongoing legal fight with The New York Times, one that would require the company to hang onto consumer ChatGPT and API conversations indefinitely, rather than deleting them on the usual schedule. The order stems from the Times' copyright lawsuit, where lawyers apparently want a broad pool of user data preserved in case it turns out useful for the case.

OpenAI says this isn't a small technical ask. The company has built its products around specific data retention windows, deleting chats after certain periods unless a user opts to keep them, largely as a privacy safeguard. An indefinite hold order blows past that framework entirely, sweeping up conversations from millions of people who have nothing to do with the Times litigation and never agreed to have their prompts sitting in storage forever.

The company is framing its response as a fight over principle as much as logistics. OpenAI argues that retaining this volume of sensitive personal and business data creates real exposure: bigger attack surface for hackers, more data that could be subpoenaed in unrelated cases down the line, and a chilling effect on people who use ChatGPT for things they'd rather not have preserved on a server indefinitely. OpenAI says it's pushing to narrow the scope of what must be kept, arguing that the legal system's interest in evidence doesn't require vacuuming up unrelated user data at this scale.

This is playing out as one of the more consequential side-battles in the broader Times v. OpenAI copyright case, which itself is still grinding through discovery. But the data retention fight touches something bigger than the lawsuit's core question of whether training on news articles was fair use. It's a preview of how courts, plaintiffs, and AI companies are going to keep colliding over what user chat logs even are — private communications, discoverable business records, or something in between that nobody has fully worked out yet.

My take — AI-written commentary, not fact-checked reporting

OpenAI framing itself as the privacy hero here is a little rich given how much user data already flows into its training and product pipelines, but on this specific ask, they're right — an indefinite blanket retention order for millions of unrelated users is a wildly disproportionate response to one lawsuit. Courts need to get much more precise about scoping discovery in AI cases, because 'just keep everything forever' is not a policy, it's a shrug.

Read more about this at: OpenAI

Related stories

The daily briefing

Every AI story that matters, in your inbox by 8am.

TLDRocket reads all relevant sources, removes duplicate coverage, and summarises the day in two minutes. Follow companies and topics for alerts, or get the briefing in Slack. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.