Artificial intelligence has been at war with copyright law for a while now, but things are getting serious in India. The country’s biggest media houses—backed by two of its wealthiest tycoons, Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani—have launched a legal offensive against OpenAI, accusing it of scraping and repurposing their content without permission. It’s a legal standoff with massive implications for AI regulation, journalism, and the global tech industry. And all of this is happening while OpenAI faces increasing competition from China’s DeepSeek, adding a geopolitical edge to the dispute.
The Case Against OpenAI: What’s Happening?
Several major Indian media outlets, including Ambani’s Network18 and Adani’s NDTV, along with the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and members of the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), have joined forces against OpenAI in filings with the Delhi High Court this week. Their main gripe? They claim OpenAI has been using their copyrighted content to train ChatGPT without permission or compensation. This isn’t just a few disgruntled newspapers—it’s a heavyweight coalition of India’s most powerful media houses, including Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar, Zee News, and the India Today Group. They argue that OpenAI’s data scraping practices are not only unethical but also financially damaging, redirecting advertising revenue and devaluing original journalism.
To make matters worse, ANI—one of India’s largest news agencies—has filed its own lawsuit last November, demanding that OpenAI delete its content from ChatGPT’s training data. The publishers claim that OpenAI’s model can reproduce substantial portions of their articles, violating their copyright protections. The case has reached a critical juncture, with the Delhi High Court setting key questions for consideration, such as whether OpenAI’s use of ANI’s data falls under copyright infringement, if it qualifies as 'fair use' under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, and whether Indian courts have jurisdiction over OpenAI given its U.S.-based servers.
OpenAI, however, isn’t backing down. So far, its defense has rested on two key points:
Fair Use: The company argues that it only uses publicly available data and that its practices fall under fair use protections. This is similar to its stance in ongoing lawsuits in the U.S., including the high-profile case brought by The New York Times back in 2023.
Jurisdiction: OpenAI has pointed out that it doesn’t have an office or servers in India, meaning Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction over the matter. The company has also argued that removing training data would violate its legal obligations under U.S. law, since it is already engaged in copyright litigation there.
The jurisdictional argument is an interesting one. While OpenAI may not have physical operations in India, it has a massive user base in the country. India, with its 690 million smartphone users and cheap data, is a critical market for AI adoption. OpenAI has even hired a former WhatsApp executive to handle public policy in the country, signalling its long-term ambitions here.
It’s not just the news industry that’s taking issue with OpenAI. Indian and international book publishers—including heavyweights like Bloomsbury, Penguin Random House, and Cambridge University Press—have also filed a lawsuit against OpenAI. They argue that AI-generated book summaries and extracts threaten sales and undermine intellectual property rights. Penguin Random House has even started placing warnings in its books stating that no part may be used to train AI models. The Indian book publishers’ lawsuit aligns closely with the ANI and DNPA cases, as they all seek a legal precedent that would force OpenAI to either pay for the content it uses or stop using it altogether.
The Bigger Picture: Global Scrutiny and China’s AI Push
This lawsuit comes at a critical time for OpenAI. It’s already battling multiple copyright cases worldwide, including the lawsuit from The New York Times and similar actions from musicians and authors. At the same time, OpenAI is facing increasing competition from Chinese AI firms, particularly DeepSeek. The latter recently dethroned ChatGPT as the top-rated free app on Apple’s App Store in the U.S., triggering a stock sell-off for major AI firms.
China has been aggressively investing in generative AI, and DeepSeek’s rise suggests that OpenAI’s dominance isn’t guaranteed. If OpenAI gets bogged down in legal battles while DeepSeek gains market share, the balance of power in AI could shift dramatically. India, with its massive digital population, could play a crucial role in deciding which AI ecosystem—Western or Chinese—gains the upper hand.
What’s Next?
The lawsuits against OpenAI in India could set a legal precedent for AI regulation worldwide. If Indian courts side with the media giants, OpenAI may be forced to enter licensing agreements or rethink how it sources training data. On the other hand, if OpenAI wins, it could reinforce the notion that publicly available content is fair game for AI training.
Either way, this case is about more than just OpenAI. It’s about the future of AI regulation, the sustainability of journalism, and how countries like India navigate the AI boom amid growing global competition.
