Court orders OpenAI to preserve all ChatGPT logs, including deleted, temporary chats and API requests

Early this week, a federal judge ordered OpenAI to preserve all ChatGPT logs—yes, even those that were meant to disappear. That includes “temporary chats,” deleted messages, and API data that would’ve normally been wiped. For developers and app creators relying on OpenAI’s API with promises of data privacy, this could throw a wrench in everything.

The order is part of an ongoing legal fight between OpenAI and The New York Times, which sued the company (and Microsoft) last year, accusing it of using millions of its articles without permission to train its AI models.

OpenAI Appeals ChatGPT Data Court Order, Cites User Privacy

In defense of the privacy of hundreds of millions of ChatGPT users, OpenAI is now pushing back, filing a motion to vacate the court’s May 13 data preservation order. According to Reuters, citing the court filings, the company argued the order was rushed and based more on suspicion than evidence, according to Reuters.

“OpenAI is appealing an order in a copyright case brought by the New York Times that requires it to preserve ChatGPT output data indefinitely, arguing that the order conflicts with privacy commitments it has made with users,” Reuters reported.

OpenAI says it was never given a chance to properly respond before the judge ordered it to start retaining logs it would’ve normally deleted.

“Recently, the NYT asked a court to force us to not delete any user chats. we think this was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent. we are appealing the decision,” OpenAI posted on X.
“We will fight any demand that compromises our users’ privacy; this is a core principle.”

recently the NYT asked a court to force us to not delete any user chats. we think this was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent.

we are appealing the decision.

we will fight any demand that compromises our users’ privacy; this is a core principle.

— Sam Altman (@sama) June 6, 2025

The judge’s decision came after plaintiffs raised concerns that ChatGPT users trying to bypass paywalls might erase their chats to avoid detection. That possibility, they argued, was enough to justify forcing OpenAI to hold on to everything. U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang sided with the Times, saying that without a strict order, OpenAI might keep wiping logs that could serve as evidence.

In response, OpenAI argued there’s no proof that people deleting their chats are doing anything shady, or that it intentionally deleted anything relevant to the lawsuit. The company also pushed back on the idea that user privacy should take a backseat, especially without stronger evidence that wrongdoing is happening.

The broader concern here isn’t just about one lawsuit—it’s about the ripple effect. This order, OpenAI claims, forces it to break its own promises to users about how data is handled. That includes users of ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro, along with developers building on the API.

“As a result, OpenAI is forced to jettison its commitment to allow users to control when and how their ChatGPT conversation data is used, and whether it is retained,” the company said in the filing.

OpenAI also pointed out that the court’s decision relied on “unfounded accusations” and warned that the order puts the privacy of hundreds of millions of users at risk. On Thursday, the company posted an FAQ outlining who might be affected and what this means going forward.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who is overseeing the case, had previously said the Times presented enough of a case to move forward with claims that OpenAI and Microsoft encouraged copyright infringement. That ruling blocked parts of a motion by both companies to dismiss the case.

This isn’t OpenAI’s first legal battle. In 2023, a trade group representing well-known authors, including John Grisham, sued the ChatGPT maker in Manhattan federal court, accusing it of copyright infringement. Two months earlier, OpenAI was sued for scraping and stealing private data from millions of people without their consent.

The next big question: Will the court ease the order, or will this legal fight push more AI companies to rethink how they store user data?