Microsoft is at the center of a pretty serious accusation involving plagiarism and copyright in the digital journalism space.
Major news outlets, including the Boston Herald, the New York Times, MediaNews Group, and Tribune Publishing, have updated a lawsuit against OpenAI and are now pointing directly at Microsoft as an active part of the problem.
The accusation is straightforward: Microsoft allegedly encouraged users to copy and republish the work of journalists, using ChatGPT as a tool to do so.
We are not talking about a simple system error or an isolated technical glitch.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Federal Court, claims this practice was intentional, with real impacts on the outlets’ revenue, paid subscriptions, and even content licensing agreements. According to the filing, Microsoft allegedly induced OpenAI’s infringement by actively encouraging this behavior.
And there is a concrete example that really stands out: ChatGPT reportedly told a user they could freely incorporate the content of a story by journalist Abbey Mastracco, from the New York Daily News, about baseball player Julio Teheran and the Mets into a blog.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
If that sounds concerning to you, it is because it really is. 👀
What exactly is being alleged?
The updated lawsuit filed by the news outlets goes well beyond a generic complaint about unauthorized use of content. The accusation describes a systematic pattern in which artificial intelligence-based tools, especially ChatGPT, were allegedly used to reproduce, reformat, and redistribute news stories without any authorization from the original content creators. What makes this situation even more serious is the fact that the journalists involved spent hours, days, or even weeks researching, writing, and editing the stories that were, according to the court filings, simply replicated with just a few clicks.
The central allegation is that Microsoft, as an investor and strategic partner of OpenAI, not only knew about this use but actively encouraged practices that enabled plagiarism at scale. This means it is not just a failure of the language model to understand legal boundaries, but rather a decision that, according to the plaintiffs, was made with full awareness of the implications for the copyright of journalistic content creators. For anyone who works in information, this kind of accusation represents a direct threat to the business model that sustains professional journalism.
Another important point raised in the lawsuit is that these companies’ chatbots frequently distort the copied work, offering incomplete or inaccurate summaries. In other words, on top of using content without permission, there is also the risk of spreading misinformation with the borrowed credibility of those established outlets. This hurts both the reader and the reputation of the newsrooms.
The lawsuit also mentions concrete and measurable financial impacts. The outlets claim that the unauthorized circulation of their content directly affected the number of paid subscriptions, reduced traffic to their platforms, and compromised licensing deals that were either being negotiated or already in effect. In a market where every click and every subscriber makes a difference for a newsroom’s survival, this kind of damage goes far beyond the symbolic.
The Abbey Mastracco case and what it reveals
Among all the examples cited in the lawsuit, the case of journalist Abbey Mastracco, from the New York Daily News, is the one that has received the most attention precisely because it is so direct and well-documented. According to the court filings, ChatGPT reportedly directed a user to freely incorporate the content of a story she wrote into a blog, with phrasing that suggested total freedom of use, as if the text were in the public domain or as if there were no restrictions whatsoever. This kind of misguided guidance, coming from a tool used by millions of people around the world, has an enormous and difficult-to-quantify potential for harm.
What makes this example so emblematic is that it does not involve a bad-faith user trying to game the system. The person simply asked ChatGPT for content about what the Mets saw in player Julio Teheran, and the model responded by reproducing the journalist’s reporting and even signaling that the user could use it freely. This raises serious questions about how artificial intelligence systems are trained to handle concepts like copyright, intellectual property, and credit attribution. When a language model cannot differentiate between public domain content and protected content, the problem stops being merely technical and becomes both ethical and legal.
For journalists who rely on the recognition and legal protection of their work, situations like this represent a major warning sign. Quality journalism requires investment, time, and expertise that do not just appear out of thin air. When an artificial intelligence tool treats that work as something that can be freely copied and redistributed, it devalues not just the final product but the entire process that made it possible. And that is exactly the argument these outlets are taking to court.
The news outlets’ position
Frank Pine, executive editor of MediaNews Group, commented publicly on the updated lawsuit and was emphatic in saying that the examples presented speak for themselves. According to him, the evidence continues to prove that OpenAI allegedly appropriated the journalism produced by these outlets to help the company become one of the most valuable in the world. Pine further stated that this legal update was made specifically to make clear why the companies would be liable for billions of dollars in damages.
This statement reflects the tone of the dispute. We are not talking about a friendly settlement or a simple negotiation. The outlets are seeking substantial damages and want the courts to formally recognize the responsibility of the tech giants. It is worth noting that, as part of this same filing, the outlets’ attorneys also decided to drop one of the original claims in the lawsuit, related to what is known as contributory copyright infringement, adjusting their legal strategy to strengthen the most solid points of the case.
Both OpenAI and Microsoft were contacted for comment and deny having committed any wrongdoing. This clash between firm accusations on one side and denial of responsibility on the other promises to produce many more chapters in the coming months.
Microsoft, OpenAI, and the weight of partnerships in the AI world
The relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI is one of the most sensitive aspects of this lawsuit. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI and integrated ChatGPT into several of its products, including Bing, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and other services widely used by businesses and consumers around the world. This deep integration means that the decisions OpenAI makes about how the model works, what it can and cannot do, and how it responds to questions about content use have direct consequences for Microsoft’s products and, consequently, for end users.
By including Microsoft as a defendant in the updated lawsuit, the news outlets are signaling that responsibility for the unauthorized use of journalistic content cannot be attributed solely to the company that created the model. The strategic partnership and the financial benefit derived from the technology place Microsoft in a position of shared responsibility, at least in the eyes of the plaintiffs. This is a legal interpretation that will still be debated in court, but it is already sparking important discussions about how copyright law should be applied in the context of artificial intelligence tools.
It is worth remembering that this is not the only lawsuit involving major AI companies and content producers. The New York Times was already part of this dispute against OpenAI and Microsoft, and other media groups have been exploring similar paths. What is happening now is a consolidation of these disputes around more specific arguments and more concrete examples, which tends to strengthen the outlets’ position before the courts. 📰
What does this mean for the future of journalism and AI?
This dispute goes far beyond a battle between tech companies and newsrooms. It touches on fundamental questions about how artificial intelligence will coexist with human content production, who will profit from that coexistence, and who will bear the costs. If the courts decide that companies like Microsoft and OpenAI bear responsibility for the unauthorized use of content by their users, it could significantly change how AI tools are developed, trained, and made available to the public.
More and more people are turning to artificial intelligence to get their news, something the tech companies themselves acknowledge within the lawsuit. This shift of audiences from traditional websites to chatbots is precisely what concerns newsrooms, because it means the content they produce with so much effort ends up being consumed without them receiving the credit or the corresponding revenue. It is a structural change in how information circulates.
On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the tech companies could set a complicated precedent for content creators in general, not just journalists. Writers, photographers, illustrators, and digital content creators across every field are watching this lawsuit closely because the outcome could define the boundaries of what is and is not allowed when using copyrighted works to train and operate artificial intelligence systems. It is a debate that is just getting started, but its outcomes will shape the digital ecosystem for years to come.
What is already clear is that the tension between technological innovation and copyright protection has reached a tipping point. Companies like OpenAI and Microsoft will need to find ways to balance the transformative potential of their tools with respect for the work of the people who produce the content that, in many cases, feeds those very systems. And journalists, who have historically been on the front lines covering issues that affect society, are now at the center of one themselves. 🎯
