Key Takeaways
- • OpenAI faces allegations from authors' legal representatives that the company is presenting contradictory legal arguments across simultaneous litigation in New York federal court and an ongoing California trial regarding the use of copyrighted works in AI training data.
- • A central dispute concerns OpenAI's corporate intent: authors' counsel contends the company is asserting different positions about whether OpenAI intended to operate as a for-profit enterprise, with implications for liability and damages calculations across jurisdictions.
- • The inconsistency claim was raised during a New York federal magistrate judge proceeding on May 12, 2026, suggesting potential coordination issues or strategic divergence in OpenAI's legal defense across multiple simultaneous copyright infringement cases.
- • The litigation strategy discrepancy highlights risks for AI companies defending against copyright claims in multiple jurisdictions, where contradictory legal positions may undermine credibility with courts or create settlement complications.
Summary
Authors suing OpenAI over alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted material in large language model training data have accused the AI company of adopting fundamentally inconsistent legal positions across two major court proceedings, according to arguments presented before a New York federal magistrate judge on May 12, 2026.
An attorney representing the authors told the court that OpenAI was asserting substantially different arguments in the New York litigation and in an ongoing California trial regarding a threshold question of corporate intent: whether OpenAI ever genuinely intended to establish itself as a for-profit enterprise. The discrepancy between jurisdictions raises questions about the coherence of OpenAI's defense strategy and potentially its credibility across multiple forums addressing overlapping factual and legal issues.
The claim of divergent legal arguments carries significant implications for liability exposure and damages frameworks. Courts in different jurisdictions may assess damages differently depending on whether OpenAI's for-profit status is established, affecting the calculation of willful infringement penalties or statutory damages available to plaintiff authors. The alleged inconsistency suggests OpenAI may be pursuing jurisdiction-specific defense strategies, though such an approach risks undermining the company's position if courts view the contradictions as indicative of weak underlying arguments.
This development underscores broader litigation risks facing AI companies defending against copyright claims across multiple states, particularly when central elements of the defense—such as corporate intent and operational structure—become contested. The timing of these concurrent proceedings, with New York federal proceedings and California trial activity overlapping, intensifies pressure on legal teams to maintain consistent positions or face credibility challenges that could disadvantage settlement negotiations or jury determinations.
An attorney representing the authors told the court that OpenAI was asserting substantially different arguments in the New York litigation and in an ongoing California trial regarding a threshold question of corporate intent: whether OpenAI ever genuinely intended to establish itself as a for-profit enterprise. The discrepancy between jurisdictions raises questions about the coherence of OpenAI's defense strategy and potentially its credibility across multiple forums addressing overlapping factual and legal issues.
The claim of divergent legal arguments carries significant implications for liability exposure and damages frameworks. Courts in different jurisdictions may assess damages differently depending on whether OpenAI's for-profit status is established, affecting the calculation of willful infringement penalties or statutory damages available to plaintiff authors. The alleged inconsistency suggests OpenAI may be pursuing jurisdiction-specific defense strategies, though such an approach risks undermining the company's position if courts view the contradictions as indicative of weak underlying arguments.
This development underscores broader litigation risks facing AI companies defending against copyright claims across multiple states, particularly when central elements of the defense—such as corporate intent and operational structure—become contested. The timing of these concurrent proceedings, with New York federal proceedings and California trial activity overlapping, intensifies pressure on legal teams to maintain consistent positions or face credibility challenges that could disadvantage settlement negotiations or jury determinations.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.