By This Hour AI Desk

The Seattle Times and Newsday have sued OpenAI and Microsoft over allegations that their journalism was used to train artificial-intelligence systems, adding two regional news organizations to a dispute that has become central to the relationship between publishers and generative AI companies.

The lawsuit, as described in a published account, frames the issue as more than a disagreement over individual articles or technical processes. The two publications contend that systems built using journalistic work could weaken the economic foundations of the organizations that produce original reporting. Their claim places the commercial ambitions of AI companies and the business model of news publishers in direct conflict: publishers invest in reporting, while AI products are promoted as tools capable of generating answers and written material for users.

OpenAI and Microsoft are named in the case. The available account does not establish the full contents of the complaint, the specific AI systems covered, the particular articles at issue, the legal claims asserted, or the remedies sought. It also does not set out a response from OpenAI. Microsoft, however, said it was surprised by the lawsuit and was willing to discuss possible ways to resolve this kind of dispute.

Publishers describe a threat to the work that feeds AI systems

The Seattle Times and Newsday reportedly argue that generative AI risks harming the very news organizations whose work is used in the development of such systems. That is the core economic concern presented in the account: if audiences can obtain material from AI services rather than visiting or subscribing to the publishers that fund reporting, newsrooms may face reduced ability to support the original work on which those systems may depend.

The complaint’s reported language takes a sharply critical view of the industry’s promise that chatbots and related products can create content. In the publishers’ telling, those products rely on work created by human journalists and can return material that resembles or derives from it. The available information supports describing that as the plaintiffs’ position, not as an established finding about how any particular OpenAI or Microsoft product was trained, how it responds to users, or whether it infringed copyright.

That distinction matters because the case concerns allegations, not a reported judgment. Training an AI system, producing an answer from it, reproducing protected expression, summarizing factual reporting and directing users toward original articles are related but different questions. The supplied account says the lawsuit concerns the alleged use of journalism to train AI. It does not provide the factual detail needed to determine how the plaintiffs seek to connect their reporting to particular products or outputs.

Nor does the available material explain what technical evidence, if any, the news organizations intend to rely on. It does not say whether the dispute centers on direct copying, access to publisher websites, model outputs, licensing practices, data supplied by third parties, or another route by which journalistic material may have entered an AI-training process. Those omissions leave the practical boundaries of the allegations unclear.

A familiar legal conflict reaches two more local and regional publishers

The case arrives after a broader wave of publisher litigation directed at OpenAI and Microsoft. The source context identifies a 2023 lawsuit by The New York Times against the two companies over alleged copyright infringement, and says other publications have brought cases as that litigation has continued. The Seattle Times and Newsday suit therefore appears to be part of an expanding argument over whether and on what terms AI developers may use published journalism.

The significance of the new filing lies partly in who has joined the fight. The Seattle Times and Newsday are not presented in the available account as technology companies or specialist data providers. They are news organizations whose product is journalism. Their reported concern is consequently tied to a basic feature of the news business: reporting requires continuing investment, while digital distribution can make the resulting work easy to copy, index, aggregate or transform.

Generative AI has intensified that tension because its products are designed to respond directly to user prompts. For publishers, the worry described in the lawsuit is not confined to the initial act of using material for training. It also reaches the possibility that AI-generated content could compete for readers’ attention with the reporting on which it is said to depend. In that account, the risk is circular: journalistic work helps make AI systems useful, and useful AI systems could in turn divert value away from the organizations that produced the work.

The available reporting does not establish that this outcome has occurred for either plaintiff, nor does it quantify any alleged loss. It does, however, make clear that the plaintiffs see the threat as structural rather than marginal. Their reported argument is that a news industry already dependent on revenue to sustain original reporting could be damaged if AI products displace the sources from which the underlying material is drawn.

Microsoft’s connection to the Seattle Times adds an unusual dimension

The Seattle Times’ participation is especially notable because, according to the source context, Microsoft and OpenAI have supported some of the publication’s journalism projects and fellowships. That reported relationship adds complexity to a lawsuit that otherwise fits a wider pattern of publishers challenging the AI industry.

Support for projects or fellowships does not, on the information provided, answer the copyright questions raised by the complaint. The account does not indicate that such support included permission to use Seattle Times articles for AI training, that it covered the alleged conduct, or that it resolved any rights issue. Equally, the available material gives no reason to infer that the funding relationship is itself a subject of the suit.

Still, the reported association makes Microsoft’s reaction more consequential. A Microsoft spokesperson said the company was surprised by the filing and remained prepared to sit down to explore possible solutions. That response signals an interest in discussion, but it is not a reported concession of the publishers’ allegations or an announced settlement process. No details were provided about whether talks had begun, what an agreement might involve, or whether OpenAI shared the same position.

For the plaintiffs, a willingness to discuss solutions could be relevant without ending the legal dispute. Publishers seeking to protect journalism may pursue agreements, compensation, limits on use, changes to product behavior or judicial rulings; the supplied material does not say which of those outcomes the Seattle Times and Newsday are seeking. Microsoft’s statement similarly does not identify a proposed remedy. The immediate consequence is a public disagreement paired with a stated openness to dialogue, not a reported resolution.

The case leaves critical legal and technical questions unanswered

The most important unanswered questions concern proof, scope and outcome. The public account available here does not say when the complaint was filed beyond its report in early September 2026, where it was filed, or what procedural timetable may follow. It provides no detail on the precise works alleged to have been used, no account of the companies’ legal defenses, and no indication of whether either side has asked a court for early relief.

Those gaps limit what can responsibly be concluded. The reporting supports the conclusion that the Seattle Times and Newsday have brought a lawsuit concerning alleged use of journalism in AI training, and that Microsoft has expressed surprise while offering to discuss potential solutions. It does not support a conclusion that either company used the publications’ work in the way alleged, that any use was unlawful, or that the plaintiffs will prevail.

The dispute nevertheless adds pressure to an already consequential question for AI developers and publishers: whether commercial AI systems can be built from vast bodies of published work without arrangements that publishers regard as adequate. A court case may eventually address aspects of that question, but its effect could also depend on negotiations outside court. The available account contains no indication that an agreement has been reached between the new plaintiffs and either defendant.

Readers should also treat the report with appropriate caution. The information supplied for this article comes from a single secondary account, and the lawsuit and the parties’ positions have not been independently corroborated for this report. The accessible material does not include the complaint itself, a court record, or a statement from OpenAI. Further documentation or responses from the parties could clarify the allegations, the defenses and the trajectory of the case.

For further context on this subject, see Judge dismisses remaining lawsuit claims against Lizzo production company.

Reporting notes

What is confirmed: Microsoft said it was surprised by the filing and willing to discuss possible solutions. The available account gives no response from OpenAI.

Why this matters: The case adds to publishers’ challenge to AI developers over the value and use of original reporting.

What remains unclear: The complaint’s detailed claims, evidence, venue, requested relief and the defendants’ full defenses were not available. This report is based on one source and has not been independently corroborated.

Sources