OpenAI has contended that neither the organisation nor the alleged cause of action falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts.
![[ANI vs. OpenAI] OpenAI Challenges Delhi High Court's Jurisdiction in Copyright Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ANi.webp?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, has argued in the Delhi High Court that Indian courts do not have the authority to hear the copyright infringement case filed by Asian News International (ANI).
OpenAI has contended that neither the organisation nor the alleged cause of action falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts.
It emphasised that “ChatGPT’s servers and training data are located outside India, and that the accessibility of the service within India does not automatically confer jurisdiction.”
The Delhi High Court issued a summons to OpenAI on November 19 following ANI’s complaint that its content was being used without authorisation.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for today i.e January 28.
In its response, OpenAI has pointed out that ANI’s request to delete training data contradicts U.S. federal laws.
OpenAI stated that “deletion of training data, as prayed for by ANI, would be in conflict with United States federal laws mandating preservation of evidence due to ongoing litigation in that country.”
The organisation referred to a similar legal case it is involved in with The New York Times and stated that complying with ANI’s request “would compel the defendants to act in violation of obligations under US law.”
OpenAI has argued that the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Division does not have jurisdiction over this case.
It pointed out that “the suit combines multiple causes of action, some of which fall outside the scope of ‘commercial disputes’ as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.”
OpenAI further claimed that ANI’s defamation allegations “fall outside the definition of commercial disputes under the Act.”
OpenAI highlighted that ANI, as a user of ChatGPT, has agreed to its terms of use, which mandate arbitration for disputes. The terms also specify that such disputes fall under the “exclusive jurisdiction of courts in San Francisco, California.”
OpenAI argued that “ANI must, therefore, prosecute its dispute as per the terms of use.”
OpenAI challenged ANI’s claim that using ANI’s works for training ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement.
It stated that “copyright law in India protects the expression of ideas, not the underlying facts or ideas themselves.”
The organisation explained that “in the digital realm, the automated use of freely available online data for purposes like training LLM focuses on analysing patterns.”
It asserted that ChatGPT does not store or reproduce data verbatim but instead analyses data to generate unique responses.
OpenAI argued that its use of ANI’s content falls under the “fair use” exception, adding that “transformative purposes, such as machine training, are not substantial reproduction of the original work itself.”
It also noted that “ANI’s works constitute news reports with largely factual content, which cannot be copyrighted under Indian law.”
OpenAI accused ANI of trying to manipulate ChatGPT by feeding specific excerpts of their articles as prompts.
It stated that “ANI has attempted to manipulate ChatGPT by feeding it specific excerpts of their own articles as prompts, trying to force the model to reproduce their content.” However, it added that “these attempts have been unsuccessful as ChatGPT generates unique responses based on the input and its learned patterns, demonstrating its ability to generate original text.”
Regarding ANI’s claims of defamation, OpenAI argued that these claims lack merit.
It stated that “ANI’s claims of defamation stemming from ChatGPT’s ‘hallucinations’ are unfounded as they do not demonstrate actual harm or damage to the news agency’s reputation.”
OpenAI openly discussed ChatGPT’s limitations, particularly “hallucinations” where the AI may generate incorrect or nonsensical information. The organisation also highlighted the broader benefits of AI, stating that “AI has benefited humanity as a whole” and urged the Court to dismiss ANI’s suit.
