Court documents show less than one percent of Copilot chats matched New York Times articles. Microsoft argues the scale of copyright infringement is overstated.
Microsoft is seeking a quick resolution in court as it faces accusations from The New York Times and other publishers that its Copilot chatbot is using their journalism for profit. In recent filings, Microsoft argues that the alleged copyright infringement is minimal: out of 8.2 million Copilot chat logs reviewed, fewer than one percent contained even a single 16-word sequence from news articles.
In September 2026, Seattle Times and Newsday joined the consolidated lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that their websites-including paywalled content-were scraped to train and operate ChatGPT, Copilot, and Bing AI.
The New York Times disagrees. Its lead counsel, Ian Crosby, argues that Microsoft and OpenAI built commercial products by using Times journalism, which he says undermines both the publisher's business and the broader news industry. The Center for Investigative Reporting and Authors Guild, also plaintiffs in the case, have not commented on Microsoft's latest defense.
Microsoft goes further in its filings, arguing that Copilot's use of copyrighted material is transformative and should be considered fair use. The company claims that AI systems like Copilot serve different purposes than the original works, and that rare instances of text overlap do not change the overall nature of large language model training. Microsoft is asking the judge for a summary judgment, which would end the case before trial. According to a Reuters legal review, Microsoft filed its motion for summary judgment on September 4, 2026, with responses due by October 5, 2026.
Legal stakes and industry impact
On September 2, 2026, The New York Times reported that the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case, supporting OpenAI and stating that training large language models on news articles could be considered fair use. This intervention has heightened the case's significance for the entire AI industry.
For publishers and content creators, the result could change how AI-powered tools are built and the value of original reporting. The dispute is part of a wider debate about AI and copyright, as covered in a New York Times technology report. The core question is whether AI platforms can be held responsible for outputs that closely resemble proprietary journalism or creative works.
Microsoft's defense relies on data, aiming to show that copyright overlap is rare and incidental. The Times, on the other hand, sees the issue as a threat to independent journalism if AI use goes unchecked. The judge's decision on summary judgment will determine whether the case ends soon or continues, with consequences for publishers whose content is used to train AI systems.
Microsoft reported revenue of $211.9 billion in its 2025 fiscal year and continues to expand its AI offerings for both businesses and consumers. Copilot, its main AI assistant, is built into Microsoft 365 and Windows, reaching millions of users. The company's rapid move into generative AI has put it at the center of the debate over copyright, fair use, and the future of digital publishing.
