USA Today Sues OpenAI: The Latest Publisher to Take On AI Copyright Infringement
The publisher is seeking damages of more than $250 million, marking another major escalation in the ongoing legal battle between news organizations and AI companies over the use of copyrighted content.
In a significant legal escalation, USA Today has become the latest major publisher to file a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the AI company improperly used its copyrighted journalism to train its large language models. The publisher is seeking damages exceeding $250 million, according to court filings.
The lawsuit, filed by USA Today's parent company Gannett, joins a growing wave of litigation from news organizations that claim OpenAI scraped and reproduced their content without authorization or compensation. The case underscores the intensifying conflict between traditional media outlets and AI developers over intellectual property rights in the age of generative AI.
A Growing Legal Battle
USA Today is far from alone in taking legal action. Over the past two years, several high-profile publishers—including The New York Times, The Intercept, and a coalition of alternative newspapers—have filed similar suits against OpenAI and its primary backer, Microsoft. These cases collectively argue that the companies' AI models, including ChatGPT, were trained on vast troves of copyrighted news articles without permission.
The core allegation is consistent across complaints: OpenAI's models can generate text that closely mirrors original reporting, effectively diverting traffic and revenue away from the publishers who invested in producing that content.
OpenAI's Defense
OpenAI has consistently maintained that its use of publicly available data constitutes "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. The company argues that training AI models is a transformative activity that benefits society by enabling new forms of expression and knowledge sharing.
However, critics counter that the commercial nature of OpenAI's products—and the substantial profits generated from them—undermines the fair use defense. They also point to instances where AI outputs have closely reproduced copyrighted material, raising questions about whether the models are truly transformative or simply derivative.
What's at Stake
The outcome of these lawsuits could reshape the entire AI industry. A ruling against OpenAI could force the company to pay billions in damages, license content from publishers, or fundamentally alter how it trains future models.
For publishers, the stakes are equally high. Many news organizations have seen their advertising revenues decline as readers increasingly turn to AI chatbots for information. A successful legal challenge could establish a precedent that AI companies must compensate content creators for using their work.
The 2026 Landscape
As of early 2026, the legal environment surrounding AI and copyright remains unsettled. Several cases are still working their way through the courts, and no definitive Supreme Court ruling has yet clarified how existing copyright law applies to generative AI.
In response to growing pressure, some AI companies have begun striking licensing deals with publishers. OpenAI, for instance, has agreements with organizations like the Associated Press and News Corp. However, these deals are often seen as insufficient by publishers who want stronger protections and more substantial compensation.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in the U.S. and abroad are considering new legislation that could explicitly address AI training data and copyright. The European Union's AI Act, which began taking effect in 2025, includes provisions requiring AI developers to disclose their training data sources—a move that could increase transparency and accountability.
What's Next
USA Today's lawsuit is likely to take months, if not years, to resolve. In the meantime, the broader debate over AI and copyright will continue to intensify. Publishers are expected to keep pushing for stronger legal protections, while AI companies will likely argue that overly restrictive rules could stifle innovation and slow the development of beneficial technologies.
For now, the USA Today case serves as a reminder that the tension between AI progress and intellectual property rights is far from resolved—and that the courts may ultimately play a decisive role in shaping the future of both industries.
This article was originally reported by Emma Roth and has been updated with additional context for 2026.
via The Verge AI