AI Wiki

Authors Guild v. OpenAI

AI Incidents & ControversiesAI Policy & RegulationOpenAI
26 min read
Updated
Suggest editHistoryTalk
RawGraph

Last edited

Fact-checked

In review queue

Sources

33 citations

Revision

v2 · 5,216 words

Fact-checks are independent of edits: a reviewer re-verifies the article against its sources and stamps the date. How we verify

Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. is a putative class action copyright lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on September 19, 2023, by The Authors Guild and seventeen prominent fiction writers against OpenAI and several of its affiliated corporate entities.[1][2] The case, docketed as No. 1:23-cv-08292, is one of the foundational author-led legal challenges to generative artificial intelligence and alleges that OpenAI engaged in "mass-scale copyright infringement" by copying the plaintiffs' books, including ebooks acquired from pirated "shadow libraries," to train the large language models that power ChatGPT and the GPT series.[1][3]

The complaint became part of a much larger wave of litigation against OpenAI by authors, news organizations, and other rightsholders. In April 2025, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized twelve actions before U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein in the SDNY as MDL No. 3143, In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation (docket No. 1:25-md-03143).[4][5] On October 27, 2025, Judge Stein issued a high-profile opinion denying OpenAI's motion to dismiss the consolidated authors' direct copyright infringement claim, with a discussion comparing ChatGPT-generated summaries of George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones to the underlying copyrighted novel.[6][7] As of July 2026, the consolidated case remains pending: no class has been certified, no merits or fair use ruling has been entered, and the litigation is in a contentious discovery phase that has produced orders compelling OpenAI to turn over tens of millions of ChatGPT logs and a July 2026 motion by the news-publisher plaintiffs in the same MDL seeking sanctions for alleged discovery misconduct.[26][29][31]

The case is closely watched as a defining test of whether training generative AI models on unlicensed copyrighted books, and producing outputs derived from those books, constitutes copyright infringement or qualifies as fair use under U.S. law. It is also frequently compared with parallel actions, including New York Times v. OpenAI, Bartz v. Anthropic (which settled in 2025 for approximately $1.5 billion), and the Northern District of California cases initially filed by Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, and Richard Kadrey.[8][9][10]

Who are the plaintiffs in Authors Guild v. OpenAI?

The Authors Guild

The Authors Guild is the United States' oldest and largest professional organization for writers. It was founded in 1912 as the Authors League of America, an alliance of book authors, magazine writers, and dramatists, before splitting from the Dramatists Guild in 1921 to focus specifically on book and magazine writers.[11] Headquartered in New York City, the organization reports a membership of more than 9,000 writers and provides services including legal advice, contract review, advocacy on copyright and free expression, and educational resources.[11][12]

The Guild's CEO is Mary Rasenberger, and Maya Shanbhag Lang served as its president during the period in which the OpenAI complaint was filed; Lang is herself one of the seventeen named plaintiffs.[11][1] The Authors Guild has previously been at the center of major copyright litigation, including its long-running suits against Google over the Google Books scanning project and against HathiTrust, both of which resulted in fair use rulings adverse to the Guild.[11] In its public statements on the OpenAI complaint, the Guild characterizes unauthorized use of copyrighted books for AI training as a threat that "will ultimately result in a shrinking of the profession as fewer human authors will be able to sustain a living."[12]

The seventeen named author plaintiffs

In addition to the Authors Guild itself, the September 2023 complaint identifies seventeen individual authors as named plaintiffs, all of whom are bestselling or critically acclaimed writers of fiction holding registered U.S. copyrights in their works:[1][13]

  • David Baldacci, thriller and political-fiction novelist
  • Mary Bly, historian and romance novelist (writing as Eloisa James)
  • Michael Connelly, crime novelist and creator of the Harry Bosch series
  • Sylvia Day, romance novelist
  • Jonathan Franzen, literary novelist
  • John Grisham, legal-thriller novelist
  • Elin Hilderbrand, commercial fiction novelist
  • Christina Baker Kline, historical novelist
  • Maya Shanbhag Lang, novelist and memoirist (and then-president of the Authors Guild)
  • Victor LaValle, novelist
  • George R.R. Martin, fantasy novelist and author of A Song of Ice and Fire
  • Jodi Picoult, novelist
  • Douglas Preston, thriller and nonfiction author
  • Roxana Robinson, novelist and biographer
  • George Saunders, short-story writer and novelist
  • Scott Turow, legal-thriller novelist
  • Rachel Vail, children's and young-adult novelist

The plaintiffs represent a putative class of professional fiction authors whose copyrighted works were allegedly used to train OpenAI's GPT models.[1][3]

Who are the defendants?

The complaint, and the December 2023 amended complaint, name multiple OpenAI corporate entities reflecting the company's capped-profit structure. The defendants identified in subsequent filings include OpenAI Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, and OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC.[3] On December 4, 2023, the Authors Guild filed an amended complaint adding Microsoft Corporation as a defendant, reflecting Microsoft's role as OpenAI's principal investor, infrastructure provider, and commercial deployer of GPT models through Bing Chat (later rebranded Copilot) and other products.[1][14]

The amended complaint allocates the various counts across the corporate entities. According to legal analyses summarizing the amended complaint, direct infringement is alleged against OpenAI OpCo LLC; vicarious infringement is alleged against OpenAI Inc. and OpenAI GP LLC; and contributory infringement is alleged against OpenAI LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC, and Microsoft.[3]

What does the complaint allege?

Core allegations

The 47-page complaint, filed September 19, 2023, alleges that OpenAI engaged in "systematic theft on a mass scale" by copying the plaintiffs' books wholesale and using them as training material for its GPT models, specifically GPT-4 and the family of models that power ChatGPT.[15][16] The plaintiffs frame the conduct as a deliberate decision by OpenAI to build a multibillion-dollar commercial product using authors' copyrighted works without permission, credit, or compensation.[1][15]

The complaint identifies two main vectors by which the plaintiffs' books allegedly entered OpenAI's training corpus:

  1. The Books2 dataset. OpenAI has publicly acknowledged, in its May 2020 research paper Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners, that GPT-3 was trained on two internet-based book corpora it called "Books1" and "Books2." The Books2 corpus is reported to contain on the order of 294,000 titles, but OpenAI has never disclosed its precise source. The complaint alleges that the only known sources containing books at that scale are the "shadow libraries" of pirate ebook repositories such as Library Genesis (LibGen), Z-Library, Bibliotik, and the Books3 dataset, and that Books2 was therefore drawn from those repositories.[15][17]
  2. Common Crawl. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI also trained GPT models on Common Crawl, a large web-scraping corpus that includes pages from pirate book sites and other unauthorized reproductions of the plaintiffs' works.[15][17]

The complaint demonstrates "actual copying" by, among other things, prompting ChatGPT to produce detailed plot summaries, character lists, and proposed sequel outlines for plaintiffs' novels. The Guild argues that the specificity of these outputs reveals that the underlying works were ingested verbatim during training, and that the outputs themselves are unauthorized derivative works.[1][7]

Causes of action

The original Authors Guild complaint, and the December 2023 amended complaint adding Microsoft, asserted multiple federal copyright claims. Public summaries by counsel and by court filings identify the principal causes of action as:[3][13]

  • Direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, based on OpenAI's alleged unauthorized reproduction of the plaintiffs' books in connection with training and operating the GPT models.
  • Vicarious copyright infringement, against OpenAI parent and managing entities alleged to have the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and a direct financial interest in it.
  • Contributory copyright infringement, against affiliated entities (and ultimately Microsoft) alleged to have materially contributed to the infringement with knowledge of it.

Relief requested

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act, actual damages, disgorgement of OpenAI's profits, and a permanent injunction barring OpenAI from continued unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' works, including potential destruction of infringing datasets and model weights derived from them.[15][16] Counsel for the Authors Guild plaintiffs, partner Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, framed the stakes by stating that "without Plaintiffs' and the proposed class' copyrighted works, Defendants would have a vastly different commercial product."[1]

What is OpenAI's fair use defense?

OpenAI has consistently taken the position that training generative AI models on copyrighted text, including books, qualifies as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The company argues that model training is a transformative, non-expressive analytical use of the underlying corpus, that the model does not store or "republish" individual works, and that the resulting outputs do not substitute for the originals in the marketplace.[18][19]

In its public statements about parallel litigation, including the New York Times v. OpenAI action, OpenAI has emphasized that "training AI models using publicly available internet materials is fair use" and characterized examples of allegedly verbatim output as the result of adversarial prompting rather than ordinary use.[18]

In motion practice in the consolidated MDL, OpenAI also raised arguments grounded in pleading deficiencies and statutes of limitation. It contended that plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded substantial similarity between specific ChatGPT outputs and the plaintiffs' protected expression and, in companion cases, attacked DMCA section 1202 claims premised on the alleged removal of copyright management information.[20][7]

Judge Stein's October 2025 opinion explicitly bracketed the fair use question, observing that "nothing in this opinion is intended to suggest a view on whether the allegedly infringing outputs are protected as fair uses of the original works."[6] Fair use is therefore expected to be litigated, if at all, at summary judgment or trial, in line with the way it has been treated in Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta.[9][10]

Procedural history

2023: filing and amendment

  • September 19, 2023. The Authors Guild and seventeen named authors file their complaint in the SDNY. The case is docketed as Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-08292.[1][13]
  • November 21, 2023. Nonfiction author Julian Sancton files a separate but related class action against OpenAI and Microsoft in the SDNY (later styled Alter v. OpenAI after an amended complaint added Jonathan Alter and other nonfiction authors as lead plaintiffs).[21]
  • December 4, 2023. The Authors Guild plaintiffs file an amended complaint adding Microsoft as a defendant.[1][14]

2024: consolidation, transfer skirmishes, and case management

By early 2024, the Authors Guild action was one of more than a dozen copyright actions pending against OpenAI in the SDNY and the Northern District of California, including the Tremblay, Silverman, Kadrey, Chabon, and New York Times cases.[4][22]

The parties entered into stipulations governing the early phases of the SDNY litigation. According to docket entries, on January 19, 2024, the defendants stipulated not to bring a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss the then-pleaded claims and not to invoke the first-to-file rule, allowing the case to proceed past the initial pleading stage without preliminary motion practice. The parties also stipulated to consolidate the Authors Guild action with Alter v. OpenAI (No. 1:23-cv-10211) for pretrial purposes.[23]

Plaintiffs in the California cases sought to intervene in the SDNY actions to argue for transfer, stay, or dismissal under the first-to-file rule. On April 1, 2024, Judge Stein denied those motions to intervene, keeping the SDNY actions on track in New York.[23]

2025: MDL centralization, motion to dismiss, and lead counsel

  • April 3, 2025. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, acting on motions by various parties, entered a transfer order centralizing twelve copyright actions against OpenAI defendants for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Sidney H. Stein in the SDNY. The consolidated litigation was assigned MDL No. 3143 and styled In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation. The actions transferred from the Northern District of California included the Tremblay, Silverman, and Chabon book-author cases.[4][5]
  • April 4, 2025. Judge Stein issued an opinion on a separate set of motions to dismiss in three related actions (including The New York Times v. OpenAI and the Daily News and Center for Investigative Reporting actions), rejecting most of OpenAI's and Microsoft's challenges. Direct copyright infringement claims, contributory infringement claims, and certain DMCA section 1202(b)(1) claims survived; common-law unfair competition and certain abridgment claims were dismissed.[20]
  • May 22, 2025. Initial MDL conference held in the SDNY.[5]
  • June 3, 2025. Judge Stein appointed Justin A. Nelson of Susman Godfrey as interim lead class counsel for the consolidated authors' actions. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Susman Godfrey, and Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard were named as interim co-lead counsel for the fiction and nonfiction authors' classes.[24]
  • July 14, 2025. OpenAI moved to dismiss the consolidated authors' complaint, including a motion to strike allegations directed at unreleased and post-launch GPT models.[25]
  • October 8, 2025. Judge Stein held oral argument on OpenAI's motion to dismiss the consolidated authors' complaint.[25]
  • October 27 and 28, 2025. Judge Stein issued an opinion denying OpenAI's motion to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claim and the related "download" claim premised on OpenAI's alleged reproduction of pirated books. The court held that the authors had adequately pleaded both actual copying and substantial similarity between certain ChatGPT outputs and the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. The court granted in part a separate motion to strike, limiting the case at the pleading stage to a specified set of GPT models (GPT-3 through GPT-4o Mini) and striking allegations concerning unreleased successors such as GPT-4.5, GPT-5, GPT-4V, and their derivatives.[6][7][25]

In a key passage, Judge Stein analyzed an example in which ChatGPT generated a detailed summary of George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones and characterized the output as one that "a discerning observer could easily conclude . . . is substantially similar to Martin's original work because the summary conveys the overall tone and feel of the original work by parroting the plot, characters, and themes of the original."[6][7] The court distinguished its prior treatment of news-article summaries in The New York Times v. Microsoft, where the summaries had been found to track non-copyrightable facts rather than protected expression.[7]

Late 2025 and 2026: discovery, ChatGPT logs, and sanctions disputes

Following the motion to dismiss ruling, the consolidated MDL moved into a contentious discovery phase. A major dispute concerned plaintiffs' request that OpenAI produce a sample of ChatGPT user logs to identify potentially infringing outputs.

  • November 2025. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order requiring OpenAI to produce a sample of 20 million de-identified ChatGPT logs to the consolidated plaintiffs, after plaintiffs initially requested a larger 120 million-log sample and OpenAI counter-offered 20 million.[26]
  • January 5, 2026. Judge Stein affirmed Magistrate Judge Wang's order, rejecting OpenAI's objections on privacy grounds. Judge Stein concluded that three safeguards (the reduction of the sample size, OpenAI's de-identification protocols, and the existing protective order) adequately balanced privacy concerns against the relevance of the logs to the plaintiffs' infringement claims.[26] The court distinguished ChatGPT users from the subjects of wiretap surveillance, reasoning that users had "voluntarily submitted their communications" to OpenAI, which weakened the privacy objection.[33]
  • February 6, 2026. Judge Stein handed OpenAI a discovery win on a separate dispute, reversing a magistrate judge's November 2025 order that had found OpenAI waived attorney-client privilege over communications about its deletion of the "Books1" and "Books2" training datasets. The court rejected all three of the plaintiffs' waiver theories, holding among other things that "Denying willfulness is not the same as asserting good faith."[30]
  • March 9, 2026. The court granted a further motion to compel, ordering OpenAI to produce additional reservoirs of ChatGPT output logs (reported as 78 million and 10 million logs) on top of the previously ordered 20 million sample.[29]
  • July 9, 2026. In a related MDL development, the news-publisher plaintiffs (led by The New York Times, and joined by the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, MediaNews Group papers, Ziff Davis, and the Center for Investigative Reporting) moved for sanctions against OpenAI, alleging that the company had deleted or made unsearchable billions of ChatGPT conversations and had misrepresented, over roughly two years, its ability to search its models and datasets for the plaintiffs' copyrighted material. The plaintiffs sought penalties for OpenAI's alleged "discovery misconduct," including attorney fees to cover the cost of securing the "improperly withheld" evidence.[31]

What is the current status of the case?

As of July 2026, Authors Guild v. OpenAI, as part of MDL No. 3143, remains an active case in the SDNY before Judge Stein. The consolidated authors' complaint has survived OpenAI's motion to dismiss, and the litigation is in a discovery and pre-class-certification phase. No class has been certified, no summary judgment or merits judgment has been entered, and fair use, the central substantive defense, has been preserved for later stages.[6][23][29] Discovery has been the main battleground of 2026: the court has ordered OpenAI to produce tens of millions of de-identified ChatGPT logs, ruled for OpenAI on an attorney-client privilege dispute over its deletion of the Books1 and Books2 datasets, and, in July 2026, faced a sanctions motion from the news-publisher plaintiffs accusing OpenAI of destroying or concealing evidence.[26][30][31] The parties have stipulated that discovery on class issues may proceed in parallel with discovery on the merits, with summary judgment expected to be briefed in advance of any motion for class certification.[23]

Authors Guild v. OpenAI is one of several closely tracked copyright actions against generative AI companies that together are shaping U.S. law on training-data infringement. The table below summarizes the most-compared cases and their posture through mid-2026.

CaseCourt or forumAI defendant(s)Status through mid-2026
Authors Guild v. OpenAISDNY, MDL No. 3143OpenAI, MicrosoftMotion to dismiss largely denied (Oct 27, 2025); in discovery; no class certified
New York Times v. OpenAISDNY, MDL No. 3143OpenAI, MicrosoftMost claims survived (Apr 4, 2025); sanctions motion filed July 9, 2026
Bartz v. AnthropicN.D. Cal.AnthropicRoughly $1.5B settlement; fairness hearing held May 14, 2026; final approval pending
Kadrey v. MetaN.D. Cal.MetaSummary judgment largely for Meta (June 2025); further amendment sought Dec 2025

Several of the most important comparators are described in more detail below.

New York Times v. OpenAI and the news-publisher cases

New York Times v. OpenAI, filed in the SDNY on December 27, 2023, is the most prominent news-publisher action in the consolidated MDL. The Times alleged that OpenAI and Microsoft trained GPT models on millions of its articles and that ChatGPT can be induced to output portions of Times articles verbatim or to summarize copyrighted investigative reporting.[18][19] In his April 4, 2025 opinion, Judge Stein allowed direct infringement and contributory infringement claims to proceed against OpenAI and Microsoft, while dismissing certain DMCA and unfair competition claims.[20] In his October 2025 authors' opinion, Judge Stein expressly distinguished how he had treated news-article summaries in the Times case (as recitations of non-copyrightable facts) from how he treated novel summaries in the authors' case (as substantially similar to protected expression).[7] The news-publisher plaintiffs escalated their discovery fight in July 2026, moving to sanction OpenAI for allegedly deleting relevant ChatGPT conversations and misstating its ability to search for their content.[31]

Bartz v. Anthropic

Bartz v. Anthropic is a parallel author class action filed in the Northern District of California against Anthropic, brought by nonfiction authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson and represented in part by Susman Godfrey. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup ruled on summary judgment that Anthropic's use of legitimately acquired books to train its Claude models was a transformative fair use, but separately held that Anthropic's downloading and retention of pirated books from shadow libraries was not fair use.[9][10]

In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to settle the Bartz class action for approximately $1.5 billion, widely reported as the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history. The settlement provides for payments of roughly $3,000 per covered work, the destruction of pirated copies of the books and any direct derivatives, and a court-supervised claims and approval process.[8][27] The case was reassigned from Judge Alsup to Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in early 2026, and she held the final fairness hearing on May 14, 2026, taking the question of final approval under submission.[32] As of mid-2026, the Bartz settlement remained pending final court approval.[8][32]

The contrast between the Bartz outcome and the still-pending Authors Guild case is one of the principal frames used by commentators discussing the latter: Anthropic chose to settle rather than litigate damages after Judge Alsup distinguished training from piracy, while OpenAI has so far chosen to litigate, with Judge Stein concluding that the plaintiffs have at least pleaded a viable infringement case and reserving the fair use question for later.[6][9]

Tremblay, Silverman, Chabon, and Kadrey

In June 2023, before the Authors Guild complaint, novelist Paul Tremblay and comedian and author Sarah Silverman filed companion class actions against OpenAI in the Northern District of California (the Tremblay and Silverman cases), later joined by Michael Chabon and other literary authors in a Chabon action. These complaints raised similar allegations about training on pirated books. In February 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dismissed several of the ancillary claims (including vicarious infringement, DMCA section 1202, negligence, and unjust enrichment counts) while allowing direct infringement to proceed and granting leave to amend.[22] In 2025, these California author actions were transferred to and consolidated with the SDNY MDL before Judge Stein, joining the Authors Guild and Alter cases.[4][5]

A separate California suit against Anthropic by some of the same plaintiffs, Concord Music Group v. Anthropic, addresses song lyrics rather than books; it is summarized separately in Concord Music Group v. Anthropic.

Kadrey v. Meta Platforms (Northern District of California) involves similar allegations against Meta's LLaMA models and the use of pirated book datasets including Books3. In June 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria granted summary judgment to Meta on the specific records before him, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to point to specific LLaMA outputs that reproduced their works in a manner sufficient to show infringement, while declining to bless training on pirated data as fair use in general terms.[28] In December 2025, the Kadrey plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add contributory infringement claims tied to Meta's alleged distribution ("seeding") of pirated files while torrenting them, a request Meta opposed.[29]

What does the case mean for authors and AI training?

Although Authors Guild v. OpenAI has not yet produced a merits ruling, its procedural milestones already carry significant implications.

Pleading-stage findings of "actual copying" and "substantial similarity"

Judge Stein's October 2025 ruling concluded that the consolidated authors' complaint adequately alleged both that OpenAI engaged in actual copying of the plaintiffs' works during training and that specific ChatGPT outputs are substantially similar to protected expression in those works.[6][7] These findings, although made on a motion to dismiss rather than at trial, are notable because they reject OpenAI's argument that LLM outputs are necessarily non-infringing reformulations and confirm that infringing-output theories of liability against LLM providers can survive the pleading stage in the Second Circuit.[7][25]

The role of "shadow libraries" and pirated training data

The Authors Guild complaint, like Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta, foregrounds the use of pirated book repositories such as LibGen, Z-Library, Bibliotik, and Books3 in AI training data.[17][9] The combination of Judge Alsup's Bartz summary judgment ruling (which separated training from piracy) and Anthropic's subsequent $1.5 billion settlement has reinforced the centrality of piracy-based theories in author litigation.[8][9] OpenAI's continued litigation of the same theory in Authors Guild is therefore widely viewed as a test of whether comparable exposure attaches when, as the Authors Guild plaintiffs allege, an AI developer trained on similar datasets.[15][25]

Class certification and damages exposure

The proposed classes in Authors Guild and Alter cover, respectively, fiction and nonfiction authors whose registered, copyrighted books were used in training OpenAI's GPT models. If certified, the classes could number tens of thousands of authors and far more works.[21][23] U.S. copyright law's statutory damages range of $750 to $150,000 per infringed work creates, as in Bartz, the theoretical potential for very large aggregate exposure, a fact that has been highlighted by both plaintiffs' counsel and independent commentators.[8][25]

Discovery into ChatGPT and the privacy debate

The November 2025 and January 2026 rulings ordering OpenAI to turn over 20 million de-identified ChatGPT user logs introduced a novel privacy and discovery dynamic into AI copyright cases. The logs are intended to enable plaintiffs to identify outputs that reproduce or closely paraphrase their copyrighted works.[26] The order has provoked broader commentary about the discoverability of AI chat histories in litigation and the design of de-identification regimes to protect end-user privacy while still permitting infringement detection.[26] Subsequent 2026 orders expanded the production to additional reservoirs of logs, while a separate February 2026 ruling shielded OpenAI's internal legal communications about its deletion of the Books1 and Books2 datasets from discovery.[29][30] By July 2026, the discovery fight had escalated into a sanctions motion accusing OpenAI of deleting or concealing relevant ChatGPT conversations, underscoring how central chat-log evidence has become to AI copyright litigation.[31]

Pressure for licensing markets

Throughout the litigation, the Authors Guild has argued that absent legal accountability, AI training on unlicensed books will erode authors' livelihoods. Guild leadership has urged the development of voluntary or compulsory licensing frameworks for AI training and has held up the Bartz v. Anthropic settlement and the survival of Authors Guild v. OpenAI as evidence that the legal landscape is moving toward such frameworks.[12][8]

Why does Authors Guild v. OpenAI matter?

Authors Guild v. OpenAI is one of the principal vehicles through which U.S. courts are confronting the copyright implications of training large language models on copyrighted works. The case is significant for several intersecting reasons:

  • It is the first organized author class action against a generative AI developer to survive a motion to dismiss in the Second Circuit, the most influential intellectual property forum in the United States.[6][25]
  • It is part of a coordinated multidistrict litigation that consolidates author, news-publisher, and other rightsholder claims against OpenAI and Microsoft before a single judge, increasing the prospect of unified rulings on training-data fair use.[4][5]
  • Its public profile, driven by plaintiffs such as George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and Jodi Picoult, has helped shape public perception of generative AI as a copyright issue and reinforced the Authors Guild's policy advocacy.[1][15]
  • Together with the Bartz v. Anthropic settlement, Concord Music Group v. Anthropic, and the various Tremblay, Silverman, Kadrey, and New York Times actions, it forms the core body of U.S. case law that will determine whether and on what terms generative AI companies must license, pay for, or refrain from using copyrighted books and articles to train their models.[8][9][28]

The ultimate disposition of Authors Guild v. OpenAI, whether by trial, summary judgment, or settlement, will be a major data point for AI policy and copyright law worldwide.

References

  1. The Authors Guild, "The Authors Guild, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, David Baldacci, George R.R. Martin, and 13 Other Authors File Class-Action Suit Against OpenAI," news release. https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-file-class-action-suit-against-openai/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  2. Justia Dockets, "Authors Guild et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al, 1:2023cv08292," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv08292/606655 Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  3. SDNY Blog (Steptoe), "Authors Guild and 17 Well-Known Authors Claim OpenAI Infringes Their Copyrighted Works." https://www.sdnyblog.com/authors-guild-and-17-well-known-authors-claim-openai-infringes-their-copyrighted-works/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  4. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Transfer Order in MDL No. 3143, "In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation," April 3, 2025. https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  5. Justia Dockets, "In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:2025md03143," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2025md03143/640396 Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  6. Loeb & Loeb LLP, "In Re OpenAI Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation," November 2025. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringement-litigation Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  7. IPWatchdog, "OpenAI Loses Bid to Dismiss Multi-District Class Action Over ChatGPT Outputs," October 28, 2025. https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/10/28/openai-loses-bid-dismiss-multi-district-class-action-chatgpt-outputs/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  8. Authors Guild, "What Authors Need to Know About the $1.5 Billion Anthropic Settlement." https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  9. NPR (Andrew Limbong), "Anthropic to pay authors $1.5 billion in settlement over chatbot training material," September 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-settlement-pirated-chatbot-training-material Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  10. Reed Smith LLP, "A new look at fair use: Anthropic, Meta, and copyright in AI training." https://www.reedsmith.com/articles/a-new-look-fair-use-anthropic-meta-copyright-ai-training/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  11. Wikipedia, "Authors Guild." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  12. The Authors Guild, "Artificial Intelligence" advocacy page. https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  13. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, "Authors' Rights Class Action Against OpenAI." https://www.lieffcabraser.com/openai-copyright/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  14. Courthouse News Service, "Authors Guild to add Microsoft in its lawsuit against OpenAI." https://www.courthousenews.com/authors-guild-to-add-microsoft-in-its-lawsuit-against-openai/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  15. ClassAction.org, "Class Action Says Makers of ChatGPT Engaged in 'Systematic Theft' of Authors' Copyrighted Works." https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-says-makers-of-chatgpt-engaged-in-systematic-theft-of-authors-copyrighted-works Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  16. The Register, "Authors Guild sues OpenAI for using books to train ChatGPT," September 21, 2023. https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/21/authors_guild_openai_lawsuit/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  17. The Authors Guild, "Meta's Massive AI Training Book Heist: What Authors Need to Know." https://authorsguild.org/news/meta-libgen-ai-training-book-heist-what-authors-need-to-know/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  18. OpenAI, "Reporting the facts about the New York Times' lawsuit," company response. https://openai.com/new-york-times/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  19. NPR, "'The New York Times' takes OpenAI to court. ChatGPT's future could be on the line," January 14, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-openai-microsoft Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  20. Chat GPT Is Eating the World, "Judge Stein issues opinion rejecting most of OpenAI's motion to dismiss claims by newspapers, book authors. Judge now will preside over all copyright cases v. OpenAI, Microsoft," April 5, 2025. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/04/05/judge-stein-issues-opinion-rejecting-most-of-openais-motion-to-dismiss-claims-by-newspapers-book-authors-judge-now-will-preside-over-all-copyright-cases-v-openai-microsoft/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  21. The Authors Guild, "Authors Guild Supports Nonfiction Writers in Lawsuit Against OpenAI." https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-supports-nonfiction-writers-in-lawsuit-against-openai/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  22. Publishers Weekly, "Court Trims Authors' Copyright Lawsuit Against Open AI." https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/94342-court-trims-authors-copyright-lawsuit-against-open-ai.html Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  23. Saul Ewing LLP, "Class of Authors Can Pursue Copyright Infringement Claims Against OpenAI in SDNY." https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/class-authors-can-pursue-copyright-infringement-claims-against-openai-sdny Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  24. Chat GPT Is Eating the World, "Judge Stein appoints Justin A. Nelson of Susman Godfrey as Interim Lead Class Counsel in MDL books suits v. OpenAI," June 3, 2025. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/06/03/judge-stein-appoints-justin-a-nelson-of-susman-godfey-as-interim-lead-class-counsel-in-mdl-books-suits-v-openai/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  25. Banner Witcoff, "IP Alert: Authors' Copyright Battle Against OpenAI Survives Motion to Dismiss." https://bannerwitcoff.com/ip-alert-authors-copyright-battle-against-openai-survives-motion-to-dismiss/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  26. ABA Journal, "ChatGPT creator must turn over 20M chat logs in copyright litigation, federal judge says." https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chatgpt-creator-must-turn-over-20m-chat-logs-in-copyright-litigation-federal-judge-says Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  27. Susman Godfrey L.L.P., "Susman Godfrey Secures $1.5 Billion Settlement in Landmark AI Piracy Case." https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-1-5-billion-settlement-in-landmark-ai-piracy-case/ Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  28. Loeb & Loeb LLP, "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc." https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc Accessed 2026-05-19. ↩
  29. Norton Rose Fulbright, "AI in litigation series: An update on AI copyright cases in 2026." https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/ce8eaa5f/ai-in-litigation-series-an-update-on-ai-copyright-cases-in-2026 Accessed 2026-07-12. ↩
  30. Sterne Kessler, "IP Hot Topic: Privilege Preserved: OpenAI Escapes Forced Disclosure of Attorney Communications in Major Copyright Fight." https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/client-alerts/ip-hot-topic-privilege-preserved-openai-escapes-forced-disclosure-of-attorney-communications-in-major-copyright-fight/ Accessed 2026-07-12. ↩
  31. Associated Press (via Tech Xplore), "News outlets urge a judge to sanction OpenAI in a high-stakes AI copyright fight," July 9, 2026. https://techxplore.com/news/2026-07-news-outlets-urge-sanction-openai.html Accessed 2026-07-12. ↩
  32. Authors Alliance, "Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement Update: New Date and Time for the Fairness Hearing," April 14, 2026. https://www.authorsalliance.org/2026/04/14/bartz-v-anthropic-settlement-update-new-date-and-time-for-the-fairness-hearing-you-can-join-online-and-unsealed-objections/ Accessed 2026-07-12. ↩
  33. Jones Walker LLP (National Law Review), "OpenAI Loses Privacy Gambit: 20 Million ChatGPT Logs Likely Headed to Copyright Plaintiffs." https://natlawreview.com/article/openai-loses-privacy-gambit-20-million-chatgpt-logs-likely-headed-copyright Accessed 2026-07-12. ↩

Improve this article

Add missing citations, update stale details, or suggest a clearer explanation. Every suggestion is reviewed for sourcing before it goes live.

1 revision by 1 contributor · full history

Suggest edit