Openai appeals “clean, unprecedented order” that requires it to maintain all CHATGPT logs
Last month, a federal judge ordered Openai to maintain all Chatgpt’s data indefinitely as part of an ongoing copyright lawsuit. In response, Openai made a call to overturn the decision, saying “sweeping the floor, unprecedented order” violated the privacy of its users.
The New York Times sued Openai and Microsoft in 2023, claiming that the companies infringed copyright by using their articles to train their language models. However, Openai said the Times case had “no advantages” and believed that the training was “fair use.”
Previously, OpenAI only kept free chat logs for Chatgpt, Plus and Pro, who did not opt out. But in May, The Times and other news organizations claimed that Openai was performing “substantial, ongoing” destruction of chat logs that could contain evidence of copyright infringement. Judge Ona Wang responded by ordering Chatgpt to maintain and isolate all Chatgpt logs that will be deleted.
Openai argued in court appeal that Wang’s order “prevents[s] Openai respects users’ privacy decisions. According to ARS Technica, the company also claimed that the Times allegations were “unfounded”, writing: “Openai did not destroy any data and certainly did not delete any data in response to the lawsuit. The command appears to assume the opposite situation incorrectly. ”
“this [Times] “Other plaintiffs have raised huge and unnecessary demands for our baseless lawsuits against us,” Coo Brad LightCap said in a statement.
On X, CEO Sam Altman wrote: “Inappropriate requests…set a bad precedent.” He added that the case highlights the need for “AI privilege”, “Talking with AI should be like talking to a lawyer or doctor.”
We have been thinking about demands like “AI privilege” lately. This really speeds up the need for conversations.
IMO talking to AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor.
I hope the society can solve this problem as soon as possible.
– Sam Altman (@sama) June 6, 2025
The court order triggered an initial wave of panic. Per Ars Technica filed by Openai court cited social media posts by LinkedIn and X, and users expressed concerns about their privacy. On LinkedIn, one warns their customers to be “extra careful” about the information they share with Chatgpt. In another example, someone tweeted: “Wang apparently believes that the “launch” copyright of the New York Times involves the privacy of every @openai user – Crazy!!!”
On the one hand, I can’t imagine there’s enough sensitive data and I’ll care if someone else will read it. However, people do use Chatgpt as a therapist, advise on life, and even see it as Romantic companion. Whether I personally or not, they should have the right to keep it confidential.
Meanwhile, the Times case is not as unfounded as Openai claims. It is definitely worth discussing how to train artificial intelligence. Remember Clearview AI scratched 30 billion images from Facebook to train its facial recognition? Or is it reported that the federal government uses images of vulnerable groups to test facial recognition software? Yes, these examples exist outside of news and copyright laws. However, it highlights the need for conversations about whether companies like OpenAI need explicit consent to exploit content rather than scraping anything from the Internet.
