Judge Orders OpenAI to Produce 20M De‑identified ChatGPT Logs

What happened: court orders OpenAI to produce ChatGPT logs

On Dec. 3, 2025, a U.S. magistrate judge in Manhattan ordered OpenAI to hand over millions of anonymized ChatGPT chat logs as part of a high‑stakes copyright suit brought by The New York Times and other publishers. The decision — from U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang — calls for roughly 20 million logs after the company removes identifying information. The judge concluded the records are relevant and that privacy risks can be reduced with the safeguards already ordered in the case.

Why the logs matter: relevance to copyright claims

Here's the blunt truth: the plaintiffs say those logs are the only practical way to test whether ChatGPT reproduced copyrighted text at scale. News organizations want samples of user interactions to see if the model spits out verbatim or near‑verbatim passages from their stories — and to challenge OpenAI’s suggestion that examples were cherry‑picked or manipulated. The court agreed the logs could be probative — not a silver bullet, but a necessary piece when paired with careful expert analysis.

Key boardroom and legal stakes

• For publishers: access to anonymized AI training data and user logs could show systemic use of journalistic work in training or outputs, strengthening claims for damages or injunctions — and offering a roadmap other newsrooms can follow.
• For OpenAI: producing millions of transcripts risks exposing user interactions, prompting patterns, and proprietary prompt‑engineering methods — which can dent user trust and reveal trade secrets.
• For broader AI policy: this ruling nudges the needle on when training data and user prompts must be disclosed in discovery — a precedent regulators and courts will scrutinize closely.

OpenAI's objections and the judge's response

OpenAI pushed back hard, arguing production would expose confidential user information and that most transcripts are irrelevant to infringement claims. Magistrate Judge Wang, however, pointed to multiple protective layers the court had already required — documented de‑identification protocols, strict access controls, and other safeguards — and concluded anonymization would reasonably mitigate privacy concerns. Wang ordered production within seven days after de‑identification; OpenAI appealed to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein.

Who else is involved

Along with The New York Times, newspapers owned by Alden Global Capital's MediaNews Group are plaintiffs. MediaNews Group's executive editor Frank Pine publicly criticized OpenAI, saying the company acted as if it could withhold evidence showing how its business model depends on journalistic content.

What this means for privacy and AI litigation

This ruling sits at the crossroads of discovery obligations for AI models and user privacy. Courts routinely weigh relevance against intrusiveness; here the balance tilted toward disclosure — but only with restrictions. A few themes worth flagging:

• Discovery in civil litigation: judges will probe whether logs are likely to yield admissible, probative evidence before ordering massive turnover — so expect focused, documented requests.
• Anonymization and re‑identification risk: courts want defensible de‑identification protocols for ML datasets — not just claims. Even anonymized ChatGPT logs can sometimes be re‑identified without careful controls.
• Trade secret and prompt‑engineering confidentiality: companies rightly stress that broad discovery can reveal training processes and prompt‑engineering confidentiality; courts must craft narrowly tailored protections to guard proprietary methods.
• Metadata matters: timestamps, model version tags, and content hashes can be crucial for statistical pattern analysis and for showing whether an output likely came from the model’s training data.

Practical takeaway for companies and publishers

• If you run an AI product: document de‑identification protocols for ML datasets, retention rules, and access controls now — courts may demand logs in future disputes and a clear, papered process makes resistance and compliance both easier.
• If you're a publisher: start thinking about how anonymized GPT logs and metadata could help prove systematic reproduction — not just lucky matches. Learn how metadata (timestamps, model version tags, content hashes) reveal patterns and strengthen statistical analysis.

Example scenario: how anonymized logs could be used

Picture this: a reporter spots a ChatGPT reply that mirrors a Times paragraph. With de‑identified logs and the right metadata — timestamps, model version tags, content hashes — experts can run statistical pattern analysis to see if similar prompts produced matching outputs across many sessions. If the same passage emerges repeatedly across model versions and timestamps, that’s far more persuasive than a single anecdote. Speaking from experience in discovery, courts respond to replicable analyses and patterns, not lone coincidences.

What to watch next

• OpenAI's appeal to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein and whether the de‑identification protocol will be tightened or revised.
• Whether produced logs reveal patterns that materially strengthen plaintiffs' copyright claims — which could change damage calculations and injunctive remedies.
• Potential policy responses: regulators and industry groups may push for standards around discovery and privacy safeguards for anonymized AI training data.

Sources & further reading

• Reuters coverage of this ruling and related litigation (reporting by Blake Brittain).
• Thomson Reuters Trust Principles: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles.html.

Reporting note: This summary draws on the court order made public Dec. 3, 2025, and contemporaneous reporting. Frankly — and I say this as someone who’s sat through endless discovery hearings — this case will be watched closely for both legal precedent and the practical playbook it creates for AI‑related discovery.

Learn more in our guide to OpenAI multi-cloud.