The legal battle began last month when a federal judge mandated that OpenAI maintain all of ChatGPT’s data indefinitely as part of an ongoing copyright lawsuit. In response, OpenAI has appealed, arguing that the “sweeping, unprecedented order” infringes upon it’s users’ privacy.

The New York Times sued openai and Microsoft in 2023,alleging copyright violations for using its articles to train their language models. OpenAI contends that the Times’ case is “without merit” and that the training falls under “fair use” principles.

Previously, OpenAI retained chat logs only for ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro users who did not opt out.However, in May, The New York Times and other news organizations asserted that OpenAI was engaged in a “considerable, ongoing” destruction of chat logs perhaps containing evidence of copyright infringements. Judge Ona wang responded by ordering ChatGPT to preserve and segregate all ChatGPT logs slated for deletion.

OpenAI Appeals Data Retention Order

“The [Times] and other plaintiffs have made a sweeping and unnecessary demand in their baseless lawsuit against us…[it] abandons long-standing privacy norms and weakens privacy protections.”

In its appeal, OpenAI argued that Judge Wang’s order “prevent[s] OpenAI from respecting its users’ privacy decisions.” According to Ars Technica, the company also stated that the Times’ accusations were “unfounded”, clarifying that “OpenAI did not ‘destroy’ any data, and certainly did not delete any data in response to litigation events. The order appears to have incorrectly assumed the contrary.”

“The [Times] and other plaintiffs have made a sweeping and unnecessary demand in their baseless lawsuit against us,” COO Brad Lightcap stated.He added that the demand for OpenAI to retain all data “abandons long-standing privacy norms and weakens privacy protections.”

On X, CEO Sam Altman wrote that the “inappropriate request…sets a bad precedent.” He also suggested the need for “AI priviledge” where “talking to an AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor.”

we have been thinking recently about the need for something like “AI privilege”; this really accelerates the need to have the conversation.

imo talking to an AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor.

i hope society will figure this out soon.

– Sam Altman (@sama) June 6, 2025

The court order sparked immediate concerns. OpenAI’s court filing, as reported by Ars Technica, referenced social media posts from LinkedIn and X where users voiced privacy anxieties. One LinkedIn user cautioned clients to be “extra careful” about facts shared with ChatGPT, while another X user tweeted, “Wang apparently thinks the NY Times’ boomer copyright concerns trump the privacy of EVERY @OPENAI USER – insane!!!”

while some may not perceive their ChatGPT logs as containing sensitive information, others use the AI for therapy, life advice, and even as a romantic partner. Regardless of personal views, these users deserve the right to privacy.

Conversely, The New York times’ case raises important questions about AI training. The controversy echoes past incidents, such as Clearview AI’s scraping of 30 billion images from Facebook for facial recognition training, and reports of the federal government using images of vulnerable people to test facial recognition software. These examples highlight the need for discussions about whether companies like OpenAI should obtain explicit consent before using online content for AI training.