NYT To Start Searching Deleted ChatGPT Logs After Beating OpenAI In Court (arstechnica.com)
(Wednesday July 02, 2025 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
from the clock-is-ticking dept.)
- Reference: 0178262562
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/07/02/2122230/nyt-to-start-searching-deleted-chatgpt-logs-after-beating-openai-in-court
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/nyt-to-start-searching-deleted-chatgpt-logs-after-beating-openai-in-court/
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 [1]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 [2]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.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/06/04/2039245/openai-slams-court-order-to-save-all-chatgpt-logs-including-deleted-chats
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/nyt-to-start-searching-deleted-chatgpt-logs-after-beating-openai-in-court/
> Last week, OpenAI raised objections in court, hoping to overturn a court order requiring the AI company to [1]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 [2]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.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/06/04/2039245/openai-slams-court-order-to-save-all-chatgpt-logs-including-deleted-chats
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/nyt-to-start-searching-deleted-chatgpt-logs-after-beating-openai-in-court/
New lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
by phantomfive ( 622387 )
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.
Re: One evil company vs another (Score:1)
by Tom Veil ( 115114 )
© 1990 â" 2025 Slashdot Media, LLC
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)
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.
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)
Barring the expense, why wouldn't a company retain data that could likely be or become a revenue stream ?
Like, who isn't drooling over gathering data these days ?
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:3)
logs are training data for their AI
Re: Legally mandated data retention (Score:2)
The article at ARS leads more towards the notion that there is no consideration for end users privacy.
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.