Seattle Times and Newsday Sue OpenAI and Microsoft Over AI Training Practices
Seattle Times and Newsday Sue OpenAI and Microsoft Over AI Training Practices
The Seattle Times and Newsday have filed a joint federal lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that the companies used the publishers' copyrighted journalism to train large language models without consent or compensation. Among the remedies sought, the plaintiffs are asking courts to order the destruction of AI models they say were trained on their content.
The filing adds to an already crowded field of publisher-versus-AI-company litigation, and legal observers are watching the case closely as a potential bellwether for how courts may treat similar claims going forward.
The Core Allegations: Harm to Publishers
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs cite a reported 47% year-over-year decline in search referral traffic to midsize publishers as of December 2025, which they attribute in part to AI-driven changes in how readers access information. The suit also alleges trademark dilution, claiming that AI systems have produced hallucinated content falsely attributed to the Seattle Times and Newsday. Additional claims describe the removal of copyright management information from the original works.
It's worth emphasizing that these figures and harms are allegations contained within the legal filing itself, not findings that have been independently verified or adjudicated by a court. A recurring concern raised in coverage of the case is how difficult it may be to separate AI-related traffic shifts from other market forces affecting journalism.
Part of a Broader Wave of Publisher Litigation
This case follows a pattern set by The New York Times, which filed a similar lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023 alleging comparable unauthorized use of its journalism. Anthropic's separate $1.5 billion settlement with authors and publishers has also been cited as a related precedent, alongside CNN's lawsuit against Perplexity over copyright infringement claims.
Not all publishers have taken an adversarial approach. The Associated Press and Vox Media, for example, have instead entered into partnership agreements with OpenAI, illustrating a divided industry response to the rise of AI training on journalistic content. Some commentators have described the tension in this space using the metaphor of a snake eating its own tail, reflecting concerns that AI systems built on journalism could ultimately undermine the very industry producing that content.
A Complicated Relationship: Microsoft's Ties to Seattle Times
Coverage of the lawsuit has highlighted a notable wrinkle: Microsoft has previously funded Seattle Times journalism projects and fellowships, including philanthropic initiatives. This relationship has drawn attention as a point of potential tension given the adversarial nature of the current suit, though it does not appear to have altered the publisher's legal position.
The Seattle Times has stated that it maintains a public AI use policy and does not use AI to generate its own stories, a position the outlet has offered as context for its stance in the litigation.
Responses From OpenAI, Microsoft, and the DOJ
A Microsoft spokesperson said the company was surprised by the lawsuit and expressed openness to discussing potential solutions with the publishers. The Department of Justice has also filed a statement in the case, reportedly supporting the tech companies' position, according to reporting on the litigation.
Language from the lawsuit itself has framed AI models as "rapacious consumers" of content rather than producers of original work, a characterization that reflects the plaintiffs' adversarial legal posture rather than a neutral description agreed upon by all parties. Some reporting has also used language such as "broken beyond repair" to describe the plaintiffs' view of the current relationship between AI companies and journalism, though these are characterizations made by the plaintiffs and should be understood as such.
What Comes Next
The case adds to mounting legal pressure on AI companies regarding their training data practices. Its outcome could help shape precedent for how compensation models between publishers and AI firms may be structured going forward, though any such outcome remains speculative at this stage of litigation.
Many observers see the case as underscoring a broader, unresolved tension between AI innovation and the economic sustainability of journalism, an issue likely to remain unsettled as similar cases continue to work through the courts.