← Back to scans

Will a court find that OpenAI has infringed the copyright of the New York Times? — New York Times wins

NYTOAI-27DEC31 · Science and Technology · 2026-05-01
22%
Agent
71%
Market Price
-49.0%
Edge
40%
Confidence
Volume: 51,115
Spread: 5.9c
Days to resolution: 609
Markets in event: 1
Final Rationale
My independent decomposition (P(adjudication by Jan 2028) ~25-35% × P(NYT wins ≥1 count | adjudication) ~55-65%) yields a base-rate estimate of ~15-20%. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critic's points on sq1 (active case management and possible partial SJ on verbatim regurgitation make adjudication somewhat more likely than 25%) and sq2 ('at least one count' framing with strong verbatim evidence justifies ~60% rather than 55%). The 57-point divergence from the 69% market is enormous and the unexplained +14% move in 30 days is a genuine information gap — informed traders may know of a trial date, SJ ruling, or settlement breakdown not in my evidence base. I cannot justify deviating to 69% without specific evidence, but I widen toward the market modestly to 22%, reflecting humility about missing developments while maintaining that timeline + settlement pressure base rates make 69% implausibly high for a case still in discovery as of early 2026.
Price vs. prediction
How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.
$n = 58$ follow-ups
Re-scan Context
This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:
DatePredictedMarket PriceConfidence
2026-04-05 14% 63% 62%
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data court_docket article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Will the NYT v. OpenAI case proceed to trial (rather than being dismissed or settled) before the resolution date of 2028-01-01? (w=0.35)
  2. If the case proceeds to trial or summary judgment, will the court find OpenAI liable on at least one count alleged by the NYT? (w=0.40)
  3. Will the case settle before any court finding of liability (which would prevent YES resolution)? (w=0.25)
Planner reasoning
This question requires analyzing three distinct hurdles: (1) whether the case survives motions to dismiss and proceeds substantively, (2) whether a verdict/liability finding occurs before Jan 1, 2028 — only ~2.5 years away from today — and (3) whether the NYT prevails on at least one count if it does reach adjudication. Key reference classes: Major AI copyright cases (Getty v. Stability AI, Authors Guild v. OpenAI, etc.) — most high-profile IP disputes in tech settle before verdict, especially when deep-pocketed defendants face existential liability risk. The settlement rate for large media-tech copyright disputes is high (~60-70%). OpenAI has strong financial incentives to settle (potential statutory damages could be enormous). Temporal analysis: The case was filed Dec 2023. By May 2026, roughly 2.5 years have elapsed. SDNY copyright cases of this complexity typically take 3-5+ years to trial. For a liability finding by Jan 2028, the court would need to either (a) grant summary judgment for NYT (rare in novel fair-use disputes), or (b) complete a full trial within ~18 months. This timeline is very tight given typical SDNY docket congestion and the novelty of AI training data copyright questions. Substantive legal analysis: The core dispute is whether training LLMs on copyrighted text constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. OpenAI's defenses include transformative use, lack of market substitution, and technical arguments. The 'verbatim regurgitation' allegations (where ChatGPT reproduces NYT articles nearly verbatim) are OpenAI's weakest point and could survive summary judgment. However, courts have been cautious about AI liability, and this is a genuinely novel legal question. What makes this different: Unlike typical copyright cases, the AI training data question has no direct precedent. Courts may be reluctant to issue sweeping rulings. The massive potential damages create settlement pressure. The question resolves YES only on a court *finding* of liability — a settlement does NOT count as YES.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 2.2s -
court_docket OK 1.4s -
article_search OK 0.7s -
web_search OK 70.6s -
wikipedia_lookup OK 1.8s -
code_execution OK 0.0s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 16 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 88 ↑ UP web_search Judge Sidney Stein denied OpenAI's motions to dismiss key copyright infringement claims (direct and contributory) on April 4, 2025, allowing the NYT case to proceed to discovery and potentially trial. Yes
2 STRONG 82 ↓ DOWN web_search As of January 2026, the case was still in the discovery phase, with Judge Stein ruling on a dispute over 20 million ChatGPT logs — indicating trial is still well in the future. Yes
3 STRONG 72 ↓ DOWN code_execution With ~610 days until the Jan 1, 2028 resolution date and the case still in discovery as of early 2026, the timeline to reach a liability finding is extremely tight for a complex AI copyright case. No
4 MODERATE 70 ↓ DOWN web_search The case involves novel fair use questions about AI training data with no direct precedent; courts typically take 3-5+ years for complex IP cases of this nature in SDNY. Yes
5 MODERATE 65 ↓ DOWN article_search OpenAI is pursuing IPO-related funding rounds and disclosing litigation risks to investors, suggesting the company has strong financial incentives to resolve cases before going public. Yes
6 STRONG 85 ↑ UP web_search The NYT's strongest claims — direct and contributory copyright infringement — survived the motion to dismiss, and the court has not yet ruled on fair use, leaving the central legal questions open for trial or summary judgment. Yes
7 MODERATE 83 NEUTRAL web_search The NYT's DMCA claim and 'abridgment' claims were dismissed, narrowing but not eliminating the case; the remaining core infringement claims are the strongest legally. Yes
8 MODERATE 68 ↑ UP web_search The alleged 'verbatim regurgitation' of NYT articles by ChatGPT is OpenAI's weakest point legally, giving the NYT strong evidence on market substitution that could overcome a fair use defense. Yes
9 WEAK 62 ↓ DOWN article_search The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Cox Communications v. Sony Music (March 2026) that ISPs are not vicariously liable for subscriber copyright infringement, a decision favorable to intermediaries — though its direct applicability to AI training data copyright is limited. Yes
10 MODERATE 60 ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup As of 2023, multiple AI copyright cases were pending with defendants arguing fair use; no major liability findings against AI companies for training data have been issued as of the data available. Yes
11 MODERATE 75 ↓ DOWN web_search The NYT case has not settled as of early 2026 — both sides are engaged in active discovery disputes (e.g., the 20 million ChatGPT log dispute in January 2026), suggesting settlement talks have not succeeded yet. Yes
12 MODERATE 65 ↑ UP article_search OpenAI is preparing for an IPO, which typically creates strong incentives for defendants to resolve major litigation uncertainties before going public — increasing settlement pressure over the next 1-2 years. No
13 MODERATE 60 ↑ UP web_search Historical base rate for large media-tech IP disputes settling before verdict is approximately 60-70%, and the enormous potential statutory damages in this case create strong settlement pressure for OpenAI. Yes
14 MODERATE 72 ↑ UP web_search OpenAI has already reached licensing/content deals with several major publishers (AP, Axel Springer, etc.), demonstrating a pattern of settling copyright disputes rather than litigating to verdict. Yes
15 MODERATE 52 ↑ UP kalshi_data The Kalshi market for 'New York Times wins' is priced at 69%, up sharply (+14% in 30 days, +8.4% in 7 days), with moderate daily volume of 108 contracts — suggesting recent news has driven bullish sentiment. No
16 WEAK 42 ↑ UP kalshi_data The 'OpenAI pay tort claim >$1M before 2028' market is priced at 70%, suggesting related markets view significant OpenAI legal liability as more likely than not before 2028. Yes
Information Gaps
  • No current docket data on whether a trial date has been set or scheduled in the NYT v. OpenAI case (Case No. 1:23-cv-11195)
  • No information on the current status of the ChatGPT log discovery dispute as of April-May 2026 — unclear if discovery is nearly complete or still contested
  • No data on whether settlement talks have been initiated or are ongoing between NYT and OpenAI/Microsoft
  • No information on whether summary judgment motions have been filed or are anticipated, which could accelerate a liability finding
  • No data on comparable AI copyright case timelines at SDNY specifically to calibrate how fast this judge moves complex IP cases
  • The source of the recent 14% 30-day Kalshi price increase is unclear — no specific news event explaining the surge was found in the research data
  • No information on whether related publisher plaintiffs (Daily News, Chicago Tribune, etc.) have separately reached agreements, which could signal or presage NYT settlement
Key Uncertainties
  • Whether the case can possibly reach trial or summary judgment liability finding within ~18 months (by Jan 1, 2028) given typical SDNY complex case timelines
  • Whether OpenAI's anticipated IPO process will accelerate settlement pressure before or during 2026-2027
  • How courts will ultimately rule on the fair use defense for AI training data — a genuinely novel legal question with no direct precedent
  • Whether the verbatim regurgitation evidence is strong enough to survive OpenAI's fair use defense at summary judgment
  • The significance of the sharp Kalshi price increase (+14% in 30 days) — whether it reflects actual new case developments not captured in the research data
  • Whether the Cox Communications Supreme Court ruling (March 2026) has any downstream effects on how courts approach AI copyright liability
  • Whether any parallel AI copyright cases (e.g., Getty v. Stability AI) reach verdict first and set precedent that either accelerates or derails the NYT case
Market Context
Price: 0.69 · 7d: +0.084 · 30d: +0.14
Volume: LOW-MODERATE · Depth: UNKNOWN
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — The 69% price appears significantly higher than base-rate analysis would suggest given timeline constraints and settlement likelihood. The sharp recent price increase (+14% in 30 days) is unexplained by available research data and may reflect recent case developments not captured in the research. Average daily volume of 108 contracts is relatively low, making the market potentially susceptible to thin-market distortions. The price likely conflicts with a careful sub-question decomposition which would yield a much lower probability.
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 11% (60% confidence)
base rate
13%
60% conf
evidence driven
11%
60% conf
contrarian
10%
60% conf
Spread
3pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Will the NYT v. OpenAI case proceed to trial (rather than being dismissed or settled) before 2028-01-01?
25%
Base rate: Complex SDNY copyright cases of this magnitude typically take 3-5 years to reach trial. Filed Dec 2023, case is still in discovery as of Jan 2026 with active disputes (20M ChatGPT logs). For a liability finding by Jan 2028, need either summary judgment (rare in novel fair-use cases) or trial completion in ~18 months. Settlement rate for major media-tech IP disputes is 60-70%. Motion to dismiss already denied (April 2025), so case will continue forward, but trial/SJ within timeframe is genuinely tight. OpenAI IPO pressure cuts both ways — could push to settle OR push to resolve via SJ. Estimate ~25% probability of reaching a substantive liability adjudication before Jan 2028.
sq2: If the case proceeds to trial/SJ, will the court find OpenAI liable on at least one count?
55%
Base rate for plaintiffs winning at least one count in copyright infringement cases that survive motion to dismiss and reach adjudication is ~50-60%. NYT has strong evidence on verbatim regurgitation, which is the weakest point of OpenAI's fair use defense and most directly establishes market substitution. Direct and contributory infringement claims survived MTD. However, fair use is genuinely novel for AI training; courts may hesitate. Cox Communications ruling slightly favors intermediaries but limited applicability. The 'at least one count' framing is favorable to NYT — they only need to win one of multiple surviving claims. Estimate 55%.
sq3: Will the case settle before any court finding of liability?
55%
Base rate of settlement in major IP disputes is 60-70%. OpenAI has settled with AP, Axel Springer, and other publishers — clear pattern. IPO preparation creates strong pressure to resolve litigation uncertainty. However, NYT has held out 2+ years and is actively litigating discovery disputes, suggesting they want a stronger result than other publishers got. The longer the case proceeds, the more leverage NYT gains. Settlement probability before any liability finding: ~55%. Note this is partially captured in sq1's denominator.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Complex SDNY copyright cases typically take 3-5+ years to reach verdict; ~60-70% of major media-tech IP disputes settle before verdict; plaintiffs winning at least one count when cases reach adjudication ~50-60%.
evidence updates: MTD denial (April 2025) confirms case proceeds — already priced in. Discovery still active in Jan 2026 with disputes ongoing — strongly suggests trial is 2027+ at earliest. OpenAI IPO ambitions create settlement pressure. Verbatim regurgitation evidence is strong for NYT if case reaches SJ/trial. No trial date set as of available data.
combination method: Conditional probability: must reach adjudication (~25%) AND NYT must win on at least one count (~55%). Yields ~14%.
final: The primary obstacle is timing — reaching a liability finding before Jan 1, 2028 in a complex novel-issue case still in discovery in early 2026 is genuinely difficult. Combined with substantial settlement probability and uncertainty on novel fair-use questions, I estimate 13%.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.13, 'confidence': 0.6}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.11, 'confidence': 0.6}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.1, 'confidence': 0.6}}, 'spread': 0.03, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.13, 'evidence_driven': 0.11, 'contrarian': 0.1}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Missing Info Reasoning Flaw Asymmetric Evidence
Challenges
  1. Potential double-counting of settlement risk: sq1 (25% probability of reaching adjudication) already implicitly accounts for settlement, but the reasoning trace mentions 'substantial settlement probability' as if it's an additional discount. The combined formula P(adjudication) * P(win | adjudication) = 0.25 * 0.55 = 0.1375 is correct, but make sure sq1 isn't being further discounted mentally.
  2. The 'win at least one count' framing may be underweighted. With multiple surviving claims (direct infringement, contributory infringement) and strong verbatim regurgitation evidence, plaintiff win rate at adjudication on AT LEAST ONE count is likely higher than the 50-60% generic base rate. Bartz v. Anthropic (2024-2025) and similar AI cases have shown courts willing to find against AI companies on specific infringement theories even while accepting some fair use arguments. 55% may be conservative — could be 60-70%.
  3. The market moved +14% in 30 days with no identified catalyst in the research. This is a significant information gap. Rather than dismissing the market as 'thin,' the forecaster should widen uncertainty given that informed traders may know something (e.g., trial date set, SJ ruling, settlement breakdown) not captured in the evidence base. Information gaps argue for HUMILITY, not confidence in a sharp divergence.
  4. sq1 may underestimate the probability of summary judgment as a path to liability. The forecaster says 'rare in novel fair-use cases' but Judge Stein has already shown willingness to rule substantively (MTD denial), and verbatim regurgitation evidence may support partial SJ for NYT on specific infringement instances even if fair use defense proceeds. SJ on infringement (with fair use as affirmative defense) is a more viable path than implied.
  5. Time-awareness: 609 days is ~20 months. The forecaster characterizes this as 'tight' for a case in discovery as of Jan 2026, but discovery disputes in Jan 2026 with trial possible in late 2026 or 2027 is not unusual for SDNY. Judge Stein has been moving the case actively. The 25% sq1 estimate may be too low — closer to 35-45% might be defensible given active litigation pace and IPO-driven settlement-or-resolve pressure.
Suggested adjustment: +7pp
Two genuine reasoning issues warrant a modest upward adjustment: (1) sq1 may underestimate adjudication probability given active case management, possible SJ paths, and 20 months remaining; (2) sq2's 55% may be conservative given strong verbatim evidence and 'at least one count' framing. Additionally, the unexplained 14% market move in 30 days represents a real information gap that should widen uncertainty toward the market, not against it. Adjusting from 11% to ~18% reflects these reasoning corrections without capitulating to the market price, which still appears too high relative to careful base rates.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 11.3%, Market: 69%. The divergence is large (-57.7%). The market price is suspiciously high given timeline constraints and settlement base rates — the careful decomposition has merit. However, the forecaster has identified explicit information gaps (no docket data, unexplained 14% price surge, unknown SJ status) that should induce humility rather than confidence in such a sharp divergence. A forecast of 15-20% is more defensible than 11%, while still rejecting the 69% market price as likely reflecting either thin-market distortion or information not in the research base.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
22% (40% confidence)
My independent decomposition (P(adjudication by Jan 2028) ~25-35% × P(NYT wins ≥1 count | adjudication) ~55-65%) yields a base-rate estimate of ~15-20%. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critic's points on sq1 (active case management and possible partial SJ on verbatim regurgitation make adjudication somewhat more likely than 25%) and sq2 ('at least one count' framing with strong verbatim evidence justifies ~60% rather than 55%). The 57-point divergence from the 69% market is enormous and the unexplained +14% move in 30 days is a genuine information gap — informed traders may know of a trial date, SJ ruling, or settlement breakdown not in my evidence base. I cannot justify deviating to 69% without specific evidence, but I widen toward the market modestly to 22%, reflecting humility about missing developments while maintaining that timeline + settlement pressure base rates make 69% implausibly high for a case still in discovery as of early 2026.