OpenAI opposes data deletion demand in India citing US legal constraints

OpenAI has informed the Delhi High Court that any directive requiring it to delete training data used for ChatGPT would conflict with its legal obligations under US law. The statement came in response to a copyright lawsuit filed by the Reuters-backed Indian news agency ANI, marking a pivotal development in one of the first major AI-related legal battles in India.

OpenAI’s January 10 filing highlights the conflict between ANI’s demand for data deletion and US laws that require OpenAI to preserve training data for pending litigation. The company argued, “OpenAI is under a legal obligation, under the laws of the United States, to preserve, and not delete, the said training data,” Reuters reported.

Reuters holds a 26% interest in ANI.

Reacting to the development, an official from ANI’s legal team said, “OpenAI purposefully makes their services available in this jurisdiction and is therefore obliged to comply with Indian law. The effect of OpenAI’s actions has resulted in damages to ANI in India because of copyright infringement and multiple instances of false attribution (hallucinations).”

“Therefore,” the official added, “as we have asserted in our Suit, we steadfastly believe that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Further, public availability of copyrighted material is not a defense for copyright infringement.”

The ANI lawsuit’s significance extends beyond India’s borders, with industry experts suggesting that the case could set new precedents for AI governance globally.

“The lack of unified regulations creates a complex environment for AI developers,” said Anish Nath, practice director at Everest Group. “This case could lead to stricter copyright rules requiring developers to secure explicit licenses and could clarify the jurisdictional authority of national courts over international AI firms, even those without physical operations in a country.”

ANI filed its lawsuit in November, accusing OpenAI of using its copyrighted content without permission to train ChatGPT and seeking damages along with the deletion of stored data. ANI contends that OpenAI’s practices not only constitute copyright infringement but also spread misinformation by generating false news stories attributed to the agency.

During earlier proceedings, OpenAI told the Delhi court it had blocked ANI’s domain and ceased using its data for training purposes. However, ANI insists that past content remains embedded in ChatGPT’s systems and must be deleted, the report added.

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

Gen AI rakes up copyright challenges

This case mirrors global legal trends, as OpenAI faces similar lawsuits in the United States and beyond, including from major organizations like The New York Times. OpenAI maintains its position that it adheres to the “fair use” doctrine, leveraging publicly available data to train its AI systems without infringing intellectual property laws.

In the case of Raw Story Media v. OpenAI, heard in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs accused OpenAI of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by stripping copyright management information (CMI) from their articles before using them to train ChatGPT. However, the court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Raw Story Media lacked standing as they failed to demonstrate any tangible harm resulting from the alleged misuse of their copyrighted material in the training process.

In the ANI v OpenAI case, the Delhi High Court has framed four key issues for adjudication, including whether using copyrighted material for training AI models constitutes infringement and whether Indian courts have jurisdiction over a US-based company.

Nath’s view aligns with broader concerns over how existing legal frameworks struggle to keep pace with AI advancements.

“The ANI lawsuit against OpenAI is more than a regional legal battle—it’s a litmus test for the global AI ecosystem,” Abhivyakti Sengar, Senior Analyst at Everest Group said. “It brings to the forefront a key issue: existing copyright laws were never designed for AI, and there’s a growing need to modernize them to reflect today’s realities.”

Implications for AI innovation and governance

OpenAI’s defense has raised complex questions about the governance of AI in a global context. If the court orders data deletion, it could set a precedent requiring compliance with varying local copyright laws, potentially stifling AI development and creating operational hurdles for global tech companies.

The case also underscores the need for international frameworks to address challenges posed by generative AI models. ANI’s demand for strict licensing protocols highlights the growing tension between intellectual property protection and the free flow of information critical for AI innovation.

The Delhi High Court is set to hear the case on January 28, the report added, which could mark a watershed moment for AI governance in India and globally. The court’s decision will not only influence how OpenAI operates in India but also shape enterprise strategies for leveraging generative AI while navigating compliance risks.

This legal battle places India at the center of a broader conversation about how governments, enterprises, and technology providers address the ethical, legal, and operational complexities of AI in a fragmented regulatory environment.