Seattle Times and Newsday Sue OpenAI and Microsoft

Two U.S. local newspapers have taken legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft over the use of their content for generative AI training. The plaintiffs are The Seattle Times and Newsday. Lawsuits by news organizations against AI developers continue to expand. This case is attracting attention as a conflict between parties that had a funding relationship.

According to reporting by Anthony Ha of TechCrunch AI, both papers had filed suit by September 5, 2026. At the core of the claims is a copyright infringement allegation that their articles were used without authorization to train AI models. The defendants are OpenAI and Microsoft, its partner and investor. The two papers argued that the arrival of the AI era would inflict irreparable damage on the news industry.

Seattle Times and Newsday File Suit

The complaint expresses the sense of crisis facing the news industry in strong language. It warns that the spread of AI could undermine the business foundations of journalism. Specifically, it includes language stating that the industry would be left in an irreparable state. The original wording is as follows.

“broken beyond repair”

This single sentence can be read as raising an issue that goes beyond a mere claim for damages. If reproductions and summaries of articles circulate via AI, visits to media outlets will decline. This creates a structure in which both advertising and subscription revenue shrink. The blow is seen as particularly severe for local newspapers.

Both papers emphasize that the training use was conducted for commercial purposes. They argue that behind the convenience of AI products, compensation to the original authors is missing. This structure is also common to lawsuits filed by other news organizations. The absence of rights clearance is the starting point of the conflict.

Regarding legal proceedings involving major platform companies, in Take-Two Subpoenas Discord and Microsoft to Identify GTA VI Leaker, a subpoena directed at Microsoft also became an issue. Negotiations between technology companies and media and rights holders increasingly involve confirmation through the courts. This lawsuit is assessed as lying on that same extension.

Is Generative AI a Snake Eating Its Own Tail?

A symbolic expression in the complaint is a passage likening generative AI to a snake. It depicts the danger of self-circulation as a snake eating its own tail. It criticizes a structure that consumes news content and returns imitations of it. The original text is as follows.

“a snake eating its own tail”

Furthermore, the complaint includes a warning concerning the survival of content creators. It argues that AI will destroy the very organizations it learns from. The original wording of the relevant passage is as follows.

“destroy the very organizations”

This metaphor also overlaps with a technical issue. Generative AI requires high-quality human-created text. News articles are primary information that has undergone fact-checking and reporting. If that source dries up, model quality will also decline.

The complaint names ChatGPT and Copilot. It points out that both products are touted as producers of content. In reality, it charges, they are entities that greedily consume human-authored works. The original text is as follows.

“AI products like ChatGPT and CoPilot are touted as producers of content, but in fact they are rapacious consumers, devouring human-authored content and delivering back to the world copies and derivative imitations of that same original content they consumed to achieve their commercial objectives”

This claim focuses on copying and derivative imitation. It takes issue not with mere training, but with substitution through outputs. Reduced referrals due to search and summarization are also seen as part of the background. The framework for compensation and permission is at issue.

Continuity with the New York Times Lawsuit

This lawsuit is not an isolated move. Its starting point is the 2023 lawsuit by The New York Times. That paper sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The partnership between the two companies was also included in the suit.

Since then, other publications have joined the litigation one after another. As proceedings continue, the plaintiffs’ lineup has expanded. The suits by the Seattle Times and Newsday are positioned within that trend. They are seen as having an aspect of a negotiating strategy for the news industry as a whole.

The issues are reproduction at the training stage and similarity at the output stage. Interpretation of fair use under U.S. copyright law holds the key. The AI side tends to argue legality based on transformative use. The media side tends to argue infringement based on market substitution.

Depending on the rulings, procurement practices for training data could change. There is a view that concluding licensing agreements will become the industry standard. On the other hand, prolonged litigation will burden small and medium-sized outlets. Joint lawsuits and support from industry groups are seen as becoming important.

The Paradox of Suing a Funder

The Seattle Times suit is distinctive in terms of the relationship involved. Microsoft and OpenAI have provided funding for the paper’s reporting projects and fellowship programs. It has become a case of an outlet that received support suing its supporters. It is assessed as an example showing heightened tensions within the industry.

Support for journalism by AI companies has expanded in various regions. Grants and partnerships have cited the goals of technological understanding and sustaining journalism. At the same time, concerns about conflicts of interest have been raised. Editorial independence and distance from funding have been called into question.

This lawsuit shows that support and rights claims are separate issues. The existence of grants does not preclude copyright claims. Rather, gaps may have become clear in the course of partnership discussions. The view that behind-the-scenes negotiations broke down is also plausible.

This paradox also offers lessons for Japanese media. Joint projects and trials with AI companies are increasing. Clarifying the scope of use and rights ownership at the time of contracting is essential. A design that separates support from permission for training use is required.

Microsoft’s Response and Future Focus

Microsoft expressed surprise at the lawsuit. A company spokesperson responded to inquiries from GeekWire. It conveyed the position that it was surprised by the lawsuit. At the same time, it showed a willingness to resolve the matter through discussion. The gist of the original is as follows.

“surprised by the lawsuit” but is “always happy to sit down and explore solutions to this type of dispute”

This response is consistent with its past approach. Microsoft has continued dialogue with media outlets alongside litigation. It has sought resolutions through licensing agreements and partnerships. This time too, it is seen as leaving room for negotiation.

The future focus will be the scope of discovery. Whether the plaintiffs’ articles were included in training data will be questioned. How to prove similarity of outputs will also become an issue. The method of calculating damages is also expected to be fiercely contested.

Whether the case ends in settlement or judgment is also a focus of attention. Payment of licensing fees and conditions for future use will become bargaining chips. Improved display and citation on the technology side could also become conditions. The terms for coexistence of journalism and AI are assessed as taking shape.

Editorial Opinion

On short-term impact. In the next 3-6 months, licensing negotiations between media outlets and AI companies are expected to accelerate. The existence of lawsuits will serve as leverage to raise contract terms. Demands for disclosure of training data are also expected to intensify. Japanese companies will also be pressed to review procurement documents.

On the long-term perspective. In 1-3 years, a compensation structure for news use is expected to be established. The gap in bargaining power between large outlets and local papers could widen. The value of primary information is instead expected to rise. Without sustainable distribution, training resources will deteriorate.

Questions from the editorial team. Can grants and permission for training use be separated? Should the boundary of fair use be drawn based on substitutability of outputs? What form of citation and compensation is desirable for readers and society? These issues need to be examined.

References

• “Seattle Times and Newsday are the latest publications to sue OpenAI and Microsoft”, by Anthony Ha — TechCrunch AI, 2026-09-05T22:49:55.000Z (ARR)
• Source URL: https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/05/seattle-times-and-newsday-are-the-latest-publications-to-sue-openai-and-microsoft/