OpenAI published a response on June 5, 2025, addressing a court order stemming from The New York Times lawsuit requiring the company to retain consumer ChatGPT and API customer data indefinitely. The order conflicts with OpenAI's standard practice of permanently removing deleted ChatGPT chats and API content from systems within 30 days, forcing the company to abandon established privacy commitments.
COO Brad Lightcap stated: "The New York Times and other plaintiffs have made a sweeping and unnecessary demand in their baseless lawsuit against us: retain consumer ChatGPT and API customer data indefinitely. This fundamentally conflicts with the privacy commitments we have made to our users. It abandons long-standing privacy norms and weakens privacy protections."
The preservation order affects ChatGPT Free, Plus, Pro, and Team subscription users, as well as OpenAI API users without Zero Data Retention agreements. ChatGPT Enterprise and ChatGPT Edu customers remain unaffected, along with API customers using Zero Data Retention endpoints under OpenAI's ZDR amendment.
OpenAI challenged the order from the outset, arguing the plaintiffs' request to preserve "all output data" was vastly overbroad and conflicted with privacy commitments. The company filed a motion asking the Magistrate Judge to reconsider the preservation order, highlighting that indefinite retention breaches industry norms and OpenAI's own policies. During a May 27 court appearance, the Court clarified ChatGPT Enterprise exclusion from preservation requirements.
The company has appealed the order with the District Court Judge, while implementing separate secure storage for affected content under legal hold protocols. Only a small, audited OpenAI legal and security team can access preserved data as necessary to comply with legal obligations. The content cannot be accessed or used for purposes other than meeting legal requirements.
OpenAI emphasises the data is not automatically shared with The New York Times or other parties, remaining locked under strict legal protocols. The company has commited to fighting for user privacy protection if plaintiffs push for access, while providing transparency updates as the legal challenge progresses.
The court order creates precedent for legal challenges potentially overriding established data retention practices in AI companies. Business customers using Zero Data Retention API endpoints remain protected, while enterprise and education customers maintain exclusion from preservation requirements. The legal hold implementation demonstrates OpenAI's attempt to balance court compliance with user privacy protection.
The case highlights potential conflicts between litigation discovery demands and AI companies' privacy-focused business models. OpenAI's public response strategy emphasises user privacy protection to maintain trust while complying with legal requirements. The distinction between consumer and enterprise customer treatment reflects different privacy expectations and contractual obligations in business versus consumer AI services. Success or failure of OpenAI's appeal could influence future litigation strategies against AI companies.