A court narrows the grounds for contributory liability
On 6 August 2026 Judge Sidney H. Stein issued an order in the consolidated proceeding against OpenAI dismissing with prejudice three publishers' contributory copyright infringement claims built on the 'material contribution' theory, and denying the New York Times and Daily News leave to re-plead those claims against Microsoft on other theories. The ground was the Supreme Court's decision in Cox v. Sony Music.
Why it matters
The largest case about training models on text lost an entire line of liability for the first time, and not on the evidence but because the Supreme Court held the theory itself invalid. Publishers who had built their suit on the claim that the companies 'materially contributed' to infringement by users were left without that ground and without leave to swap it for another, because, in the court's view, they could have chosen the other one from the start.
The case is In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, 25-md-3143 in the Southern District of New York; the order concerns the suits of The New York Times, Daily News and the Center for Investigative Reporting. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026), the Supreme Court held that 'material contribution' is not a valid theory of contributory liability: liability arises only if the party induced the infringement or the service provided was tailored to it. OpenAI then moved under Rule 12(c). In response the publishers themselves dismissed the corresponding claims against OpenAI and Microsoft with prejudice, so the court denied the motion as moot and dismissed the claims with prejudice on the strength of that withdrawal. The New York Times and Daily News sought leave to assert 'inducement' and 'services tailored to infringement' theories against Microsoft; the court refused, because Rule 16(b) requires good cause after the scheduling deadline and Cox does not supply it: those theories existed before it and Cox expressly reaffirmed them. Switching theories now would require reopening discovery into Microsoft's intent. The two newspapers' trademark dilution claims were separately dismissed with prejudice. The Center for Investigative Reporting had already filed a second amended complaint; the two newspapers were directed to file amended complaints within fifteen days. What the record does not claim. That the court granted OpenAI's motion: it was denied as moot, so the court did not rule on its merits. That the case is over: other claims remain. That summary judgment is involved: the order says nothing about that stage, and the refusal concerns leave to amend.