Back to today's topics

Verified · Sep 8, 2026

Independently verified

Seattle Times and Newsday sue OpenAI and Microsoft — a complaint that calls GenAI 'a snake eating its own tail'

2 sources

The Seattle Times Company and Newsday LLC sued OpenAI and Microsoft in the Southern District of New York — Case 1:26-cv-07644, filed September 4, 2026, jury trial demanded, by Klaris Law PLLC (read from the complaint on CourtListener). The complaint alleges automated-bots scraping that bypassed paywalls, training on datasets 'including but not limited to' WebText, WebText2, Common Crawl, and Microsoft's own Bing search index, deliberate removal or alteration of copyright management information ('article titles, author names, and copyright notices'), and — 'upon information and belief' — LLMs that 'regurgitate it verbatim when prompted.' Claims under the Copyright Act, DMCA, Lanham Act, and state trademark-dilution laws. Its words: the journalism economy 'may become broken beyond repair'; GenAI is 'Like a snake eating its own tail' that 'threatens to destroy the very news organizations'; 30 Pulitzer Prizes between the two plaintiffs. Per TechCrunch: Microsoft told GeekWire it is 'surprised by the lawsuit' but 'always happy to sit down'; Microsoft and OpenAI have funded some Seattle Times journalism projects and fellowships.

Why now

The filing landed Friday, September 4 and TechCrunch's account ran the next day, so most creator audiences have seen the headline but not the document — and the document is the content: its quotable lines ('rapacious consumers', 'snake eating its own tail'), its dataset list, and its own 'upon information and belief' hedges are all public. Every prior publisher suit gets replayed when a new one lands, and this one carries a built-in irony beat — a paper whose journalism projects and fellowships Microsoft and OpenAI have funded, suing both — that makes the procedural stakes discussable without legal expertise.

Why it is worth publishing

The rare story where the primary source is one click away and readable: the card is built entirely from the complaint's own text plus one TechCrunch read, so creators can verify every quote on screen. It also teaches the season's most useful legal-literacy habit — allegations are not findings — with the complaint's own hedges as the teaching material.

Evidence basis

Complaint PDF read via text extraction on 2026-09-08 (Case 1:26-cv-07644, filed 09/04/26, 38 pages) + TechCrunch full read on 2026-09-08 (datePublished 2026-09-05T22:49:55+00:00). The Microsoft response is carried at the TechCrunch-cites-GeekWire layer; GeekWire was unreachable.

Seattle Times and Newsday just sued OpenAI and Microsoft — and the complaint calls generative AI 'a snake eating its own tail'

Angle

Read the complaint, not the headline: walk the quotable lines verbatim ('rapacious consumers', 'a snake eating its own tail'), show the dataset list and the CMI allegation as what the case will actually turn on, and flag which allegations carry the complaint's own 'upon information and belief' hedge. Close with the two facts that make this suit different from the 2023 NYT case: the plaintiff funded by the defendants' projects and fellowships, and the paywall history (one free pageview at the Seattle Times, a full hard gate at Newsday since August 2022).

Format

Carousel

Demo idea

Slide-by-slide quote walk: each slide pairs one complaint quote (verbatim, with 'the complaint alleges') against a plain-language translation of what it would mean if proven — ending on the slide that says none of it has been tested in court yet.

Platform notes

Everything on the allegations side is a complaint, not a finding — keep 'the complaint alleges' on every slide. Microsoft's response quote is 'a Microsoft spokesperson told GeekWire, as quoted by TechCrunch'. The 2023 NYT suit is background at TechCrunch's level; do not import its docket or rulings. Do not name a damages figure — the complaint extracted here does not state one.

Usable claims

  • The Seattle Times Company and Newsday LLC sued OpenAI and Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The 38-page complaint — Case 1:26-cv-07644, Document 1, filed 09/04/26, jury trial demanded — was brought by attorneys Klaris Law, PLLC, and asserts claims under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq.), including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1125(c)), and Washington and New York state laws preventing trademark dilution. The caption names nine OpenAI parties — eight OpenAI entities plus the OpenAI Foundation — collectively 'OpenAI', alongside Microsoft.
  • The complaint alleges, in its own words: that the defendants 'have for years obtained copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted content by methodically scraping ... using automated bots, bypassing Plaintiffs' paywalls'; that copies of the content were incorporated into large-scale datasets 'including but not limited to datasets derived from WebText, WebText2, Common Crawl, and Microsoft's own Bing search index' and used 'to train, fine-tune, and ground the large language models'; that the defendants 'deliberately remove or alter copyright management information ("CMI") ... such as article titles, author names, and copyright notices'; and that 'Defendants' LLMs store copies of that content and, upon information and belief, regurgitate it verbatim when prompted.' Several of these allegations are pleaded 'Upon information and belief' — the complaint's own hedge — and none has been tested in court.
  • Verified in the complaint's text: 'this economic cycle may become broken beyond repair. AI products like ChatGPT and CoPilot are touted as producers of content, but in fact they are rapacious consumers, devouring human-authored content and delivering back to the world copies and derivative imitations of that same original content they consumed to achieve their commercial objectives'; 'Like a snake eating its own tail, GenAI that is trained on painstakingly researched, expensive-to-produce content threatens to destroy the very news organizations'; the plaintiffs count 30 Pulitzer Prizes between them, with The Seattle Times founded in 1886 and Newsday serving Long Island and New York City since 1940; The Seattle Times has run a metered digital paywall since spring 2013 — today one free pageview before payment — and Newsday has had a complete hard gate since August 2022.
  • Context per TechCrunch's September 5 report: The New York Times sued OpenAI and its partner/investor Microsoft back in 2023, and other publications followed suit as that case continued. TechCrunch notes the Seattle Times lawsuit is particularly notable because Microsoft and OpenAI have funded some of the organization's journalism projects and fellowships. A Microsoft spokesperson told GeekWire the company is 'surprised by the lawsuit' but is 'always happy to sit down and explore solutions to this type of dispute.'

Evidence pipeline

Breakdown

Two more publishers sued OpenAI and Microsoft — and this time the primary source is a 38-page complaint anyone can read: the quotable lines ('rapacious consumers', 'a snake eating its own tail'), the dataset list (WebText, WebText2, Common Crawl, Bing), and the complaint's own 'upon information and belief' hedges. This breakdown holds the card to the document: allegations are not findings, the Microsoft response lives at the TechCrunch-cites-GeekWire layer, and the 2023 NYT suit stays background — no docket facts imported across cases.

Risks

  • Keep the attribution verbs: 'the complaint alleges', '起诉书指控'. Keep the complaint's own 'upon information and belief' hedge where it appears, and remind audiences the case is at day zero.
  • Verify every procedural fact (court, docket, filing date) against the complaint itself, as this card does, and keep the 2023 NYT reference at TechCrunch's background level without importing its details.
  • Attribute the quote at the layer it traveled: 'a Microsoft spokesperson told GeekWire, as quoted by TechCrunch' — and leave the funding note as TechCrunch's characterization.

Demo ideas

  • Allegations-vs-findings card: two columns, 'what the complaint alleges' (scraping, datasets, CMI removal, verbatim regurgitation — each with its hedge marked) against 'what a court has decided' (empty)
  • Quote-walk carousel: 'rapacious consumers' and 'snake eating its own tail' verbatim from the complaint, with the paywall history (1 free pageview; hard gate since August 2022) as the stakes slide