OpenAI is facing calls for “serious sanctions” after fighting to keep news organizations from snooping through millions of logs to find evidence of users skirting their paywalls by prompting ChatGPT to regurgitate their articles.
This evidence is considered among the most important to both sides, potentially either dooming OpenAI as an infringer or exonerating its chatbot technology as a transformative fair use of news sites’ content.
In a sanctions motion Thursday, news organizations suing OpenAI—led by The New York Times—accused the AI firm of repeatedly lying for years to conceal evidence of infringement that could hobble OpenAI’s defense.
These alleged lies were exposed when the court compelled an “ill-prepared witness,” OpenAI privacy engineer Vincent Monaco, to be re-deposed. During the subsequent April deposition, he inadvertently revealed that OpenAI misled the court for two years about the cost and burdens of searching ChatGPT logs, NYT’s filing said.
Among the most shocking revelations, OpenAI allegedly pretended from the earliest stages of the case that it did not have the technical ability to search large anonymized samples of ChatGPT logs when it had actually already conducted such searches prior to the start of litigation, NYT alleged.
Sanctions are warranted because “OpenAI’s concealment of this fact withheld highly relevant evidence, prolonged discovery, inflated expenses, and burdened the Court,” news plaintiffs alleged.
Asked for comment, an OpenAI spokesperson suggested that NYT’s sanctions motion was a late litigation effort to access more logs and infringe more users’ privacy. The spokesperson claimed that when the NYT recently dropped some claims in the lawsuit, it was a sign that news plaintiffs’ case was crumbling, not OpenAI’s defense.
“As the Times’ case weakens and they’ve been forced to drop claims against us, they’re persisting with their efforts to invade the privacy of people who have nothing to do with this case, including by making these blatantly false allegations,” OpenAI’s spokesperson said. “We’ll continue defending our users’ privacy and the long-established principles of fair use.”