NYT Moves to Amend Copyright Suit Against Microsoft, Citing New Supreme Court Standard on Contributory Infringement

What Changed in Court

The New York Times filed a heavily redacted motion Thursday asking a federal court for permission to amend its copyright lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, according to Ars Technica. The core reason: the Supreme Court recently sided with Sony against Cox Communications in a music piracy case, setting a tougher standard for contributory copyright infringement. Under that new standard, plaintiffs must prove a defendant intentionally acted to induce illegal conduct, not merely that they provided a platform through which infringement occurred.

The NYT now alleges Microsoft did not just passively supply cloud infrastructure. It wants the amended complaint to specify that Microsoft built a bespoke supercomputing system, ranked among the most powerful in the world, specifically to enable OpenAI's training operations.

What the NYT Is Alleging

NYT spokesperson Graham James said in a statement to Ars Technica: "As we have long alleged, Microsoft actively encouraged OpenAI to steal our copyrighted works."

The original complaint treated Microsoft's supercomputing systems as generic cloud services. The amended version would reframe that hardware as a deliberate, purpose-built tool for the specific conduct the NYT says was infringing. That distinction matters enormously under the new contributory infringement standard because generic cloud hosting and a tailored system built for a specific, allegedly illegal purpose are different things legally.

Alongside the new allegation, the NYT agreed to voluntarily dismiss two claims: a separate contributory copyright infringement count and a trademark dilution claim, both against all defendants. The NYT says this streamlines the case to its strongest arguments rather than scatters it across weaker ones.

Microsoft's Response

Microsoft's position is blunt. A spokesperson told Ars Technica the amended complaint is "a last-ditch effort by the plaintiff to save its claim from unfavorable precedent set in other recent rulings."

That framing is not unreasonable on its face. The NYT is explicitly amending because the existing legal standard moved against it. Microsoft's argument is that the NYT is retrofitting its theory to survive a ruling that was not decided in its favor. The court will have to weigh whether the amendment reflects new evidence uncovered during discovery, or primarily a legal pivot.

The NYT's Counter to That Charge

The NYT argues neither Microsoft nor OpenAI would be prejudiced by the amendment. Courts routinely allow plaintiffs to revise legal arguments when precedent shifts, and the NYT told the court it is NOT seeking any additional discovery to support the updated claims. The evidence it needs is already in hand from existing discovery, so the case schedule would not be delayed.

Whether the court accepts that framing depends partly on how much the factual theory has actually shifted versus how much is just new legal language wrapped around the same underlying facts.

Background on the Lawsuit

The NYT filed its original lawsuit against OpenAI in 2023, becoming the first major news publisher to sue the company. The allegations included: ChatGPT was trained on NYT articles without authorization; the model outputs articles nearly verbatim in some cases; ChatGPT functions as a substitute for an NYT subscription, causing market harm; and the model falsely attributed fabricated claims to NYT reporting, causing reputational harm.

The NYT also argued that ChatGPT summaries of its Wirecutter product review content diverted affiliate link clicks, costing writers actual commission income.

The Strongest Counterargument

Microsoft and OpenAI's defenders argue that building and operating computing infrastructure for an AI company is no different from building roads that happen to carry trucks hauling legal and illegal goods alike. Under that logic, infrastructure providers should not be liable for how their customers use the hardware, and imposing such liability would chill investment in foundational technology. If every supercomputer vendor faces copyright exposure based on what tenants train on their machines, the argument goes, the practical effect is to hand incumbent media companies a veto over AI development.

That concern is legitimate and the Supreme Court's Cox ruling reflects it. The Court specifically rejected a broad interpretation that would have made ISPs liable for their subscribers' piracy. The NYT's amendment is a direct response to that logic. Whether Microsoft's role here resembles Cox Communications, an internet service provider with millions of users, or something more targeted and intentional is the central legal question the amended complaint forces the court to answer.

What Happens Next

The court has not yet ruled on whether to allow the amendment. If granted, Microsoft will have the opportunity to move to dismiss the revised contributory infringement claim under the new standard. The NYT's assertion that no additional discovery is needed is a tactical concession designed to make the amendment harder to oppose on procedural grounds, but it also means the NYT has locked in its factual theory. The sufficiency of whatever evidence it gathered about Microsoft's supercomputer design and purpose will be tested without another bite at the discovery apple.