Justice Department Backs OpenAI As NYT Copyright Case Enters Key Phase
The Justice Department filed a brief supporting OpenAI as summary-judgment arguments in the New York Times' copyright suit were heard in federal court in Manhattan on Friday, September 4, 2026.[1]
The DOJ told the court that large-scale training on digital works produces a transformative public benefit and urged judges to allow the practice.[1] The Times said the companies copied its journalism at scale to build commercial substitutes.[1] OpenAI and Microsoft countered that training on publicly available material is fair use and that reported facts are not copyright-protected.[1] OpenAI cited California rulings Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthropic as support, and the Times said those cases are nonbinding and factually different.[1]
In 2023 the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging the companies built models by copying Times content at scale.[1] District Judge Sidney Stein will decide in the coming months whether to grant summary judgment or send parts of the case to trial in 2027.[1]
The mainstream summary presents the Justice Department's support for OpenAI as a straightforward endorsement of transformative public benefit, but Matthew Yglesias critiques the prevailing narrative that the economy is heavily reliant on uninterrupted AI progress. He argues that the U.S. macroeconomy would not collapse if AI advancement slowed, suggesting that the economic benefits attributed to AI are concentrated among a limited number of firms and that any downturn would primarily impact asset prices rather than broad employment or consumption. This perspective highlights a significant gap in the mainstream coverage, which does not address the potential economic ramifications of a legal setback for AI companies beyond the immediate case at hand.
Moreover, while the summary implies that the DOJ's brief is a crucial factor in the case, Yglesias points out that legal victories or losses are often framed as existential threats to the AI industry. This framing, he argues, may be exaggerated and overlooks the resilience of the economy, which could sustain growth through other channels even in the face of regulatory challenges. Thus, the mainstream account misses a more nuanced understanding of the broader economic context surrounding the case and the implications of AI's legal landscape.
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📌 Key Facts
- On Friday, September 4, 2026, the New York Times, OpenAI and Microsoft presented summary-judgment arguments in the 2023 NYT v. OpenAI/Microsoft copyright case in New York federal court.
- The Times argued the companies copied its works at scale to build commercial substitutes, while OpenAI and Microsoft said training on publicly available material is fair use and that reported facts are not copyright-protected.
- OpenAI cited Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthropic as supporting fair use for AI training, and the Times argued those California rulings are nonbinding and factually distinct.
- On Thursday, September 3, 2026, the Justice Department filed a brief supporting OpenAI, calling large-scale training on digital works a transformative public benefit.
- District Judge Sidney Stein will decide in the coming months whether to grant summary judgment or send parts of the case to trial in 2027.
📊 Analysis & Commentary (1)
"The author argues (contrary to some breathless takes) that the U.S. economy would weather a slowdown in AI progress: AI benefits are diffuse and concentrated, legal or technical setbacks would mainly pressure valuations and select firms rather than topple GDP, and policy should focus on practical mitigation rather than panic."
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time