Source URL: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/5/openai-court-order/#atom-everything
Source: Simon Willison’s Weblog
Title: OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats
Feedly Summary: OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats
This is very worrying. The New York Times v OpenAI lawsuit, now in its 17th month, includes accusations that OpenAI’s models can output verbatim copies of New York Times content – both from training data and from implementations of RAG.
(This may help explain why Anthropic’s Claude system prompts for their search tool emphatically demand Claude not spit out more than a short sentence of RAG-fetched search content.)
A few weeks ago the judge ordered OpenAI to start preserving the logs of all potentially relevant output – including supposedly temporary private chats and API outputs served to paying customers, which previously had a 30 day retention policy.
The May 13th court order itself is only two pages – here’s the key paragraph:
Accordingly, OpenAI is NOW DIRECTED to preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis until further order of the Court (in essence, the output log data that OpenAI has been destroying), whether such data might be deleted at a user’s request or because of “numerous privacy laws and regulations” that might require OpenAI to do so.
SO ORDERED.
That “numerous privacy laws and regulations" line refers to OpenAI’s argument that this order runs counter to a whole host of existing worldwide privacy legislation. The judge here is stating that the potential need for future discovery in this case outweighs OpenAI’s need to comply with those laws.
Unsurprisingly, I have seen plenty of bad faith arguments online about this along the lines of
"Yeah, but that’s what OpenAI really wanted to happen" – the fact that OpenAI are fighting this order runs counter to the common belief that they aggressively train models on all incoming user data no matter what promises they have made to those users.
I still see this as a massive competitive disadvantage for OpenAI, particularly when it comes to API usage. Paying customers of their APIs may well make the decision to switch to other providers who can offer retention policies that aren’t subverted by this court order!
Via Hacker News
Tags: ai-ethics, generative-ai, openai, new-york-times, ai, law, llms
AI Summary and Description: Yes
Summary: The text discusses a court order requiring OpenAI to preserve all ChatGPT output logs, including those from deleted chats, amidst ongoing litigation. This has significant implications for privacy compliance and the competitive landscape in AI services.
Detailed Description: The text highlights a critical legal development involving OpenAI and raises concerns about the implications for privacy, compliance, and competitive dynamics in the AI sector.
– **Court Order**: A New York court has mandated that OpenAI preserve logs of all relevant outputs, including private chats and API interactions, which previously had a 30-day retention policy. This decision is significant as it challenges OpenAI’s previous practices of deleting logs.
– **Privacy Concerns**: The order is justified by the judge’s assertion that the need for discovery in the legal case outweighs OpenAI’s compliance with various global privacy laws. The directive conflicts with OpenAI’s claims regarding adherence to privacy legislation, bringing into question their data practices and user trust.
– **Competitive Disadvantage**: The text suggests this court decision may disadvantage OpenAI in the API service market as customers might prefer other providers with more favorable data retention policies. Consequently, this could impact OpenAI’s user base, client retention, and overall market competitiveness.
– **Public Perception**: The controversy surrounding this case has sparked a discussion on the public’s perception of OpenAI’s data handling practices, particularly interpretations that suggest the company benefits from its own controversial practices despite privacy assurances.
This situation highlights the intersection of AI development, legal compliance, and privacy regulations, which is crucial for professionals in security and compliance roles to monitor. The evolving legal landscape around AI technologies necessitates a proactive approach to ensure compliance with emerging regulations and maintain user trust.