OpenAI can now remove deleted ChatGPT conversations from its servers after a federal judge lifted an earlier order that had forced the company to keep them. The decision marks the end of a long-running dispute over user data and privacy tied to an ongoing copyright lawsuit from The New York Times[1] and several other news publishers.
Court Drops Broad Data Preservation Rule
The preservation order[2], first issued in May 2025, had required OpenAI to hold all output log data related to ChatGPT. This included deleted chats and temporary conversations that users believed were gone. The court put the rule in place so the plaintiffs could look for possible examples of copyrighted content inside ChatGPT’s responses.
Judge Ona Wang of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York later ruled that the company no longer needs to store every deleted chat. OpenAI stopped keeping new logs on September 26, but all previously saved data remains available for the publishers as part of the evidence review. The order still allows the plaintiffs to flag specific user accounts or domains if they suspect links to copyrighted material.
Users Regain Privacy Control
For ChatGPT users, the new ruling means deleted chats will again be removed from OpenAI’s systems, returning control over personal conversations. The earlier order had affected millions of accounts across the free, Plus, Pro, and Team versions of ChatGPT. Business and education accounts were not impacted[3] because they follow separate data retention policies.
Privacy advocates and users had criticized the earlier rule for overreaching. Many argued that it conflicted with data protection laws that give individuals the right to delete their information. OpenAI also pushed back in court, saying that the order placed the company in a difficult position between privacy obligations and discovery demands.
Legal Battle Over Copyright Continues
The lawsuit from The New York Times began in late 2023, accusing OpenAI of training its AI models using the newspaper’s content without permission or payment. The complaint claims that ChatGPT and related systems produced outputs resembling original articles. OpenAI maintains that its training process follows fair use principles and does not violate copyright law.
During earlier hearings, the court questioned how to balance the need for potential evidence with users’ privacy expectations. The initial preservation order was meant to keep data intact until both sides clarified what material might be relevant. After months of review, Judge Wang agreed that a blanket rule covering every chat was unnecessary.
Ongoing Impact on AI Companies
Although OpenAI can now delete most chat logs, the lawsuit itself remains active. The preserved records will stay accessible to the plaintiffs, and the Times can request new ones linked to specific users or organizations as it continues its investigation. Microsoft, a key OpenAI partner, also faces involvement in the case through its AI product Copilot.
The outcome of this and similar lawsuits could shape how AI developers use publicly available text to train large language models. Industry observers say the rulings may eventually set clearer boundaries for the use of copyrighted materials in machine learning.
Users Advised to Stay Cautious
While the latest order restores normal deletion for most accounts, experts still encourage users to avoid sharing private or sensitive information. Even with deletion enabled, some data may remain accessible during ongoing legal reviews or system backups.
The court’s decision eases OpenAI’s storage burden and restores some confidence among users who value privacy. Yet the broader questions about how generative AI interacts with journalism and copyright are still unresolved, and the final legal outcome could influence data handling rules for years to come.
Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: Solen Feyissa – unsplash
Read next:
• AI Systems Can Be Fooled by Fake Dates, Giving Newer Content Unfair Visibility[4]
• OpenAI’s Sora 2 Sparks Debate Over AI’s Growing Environmental Footprint[5]
References
- ^ from The New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ preservation order (cdn.arstechnica.net)
- ^ were not impacted (openai.com)
- ^ AI Systems Can Be Fooled by Fake Dates, Giving Newer Content Unfair Visibility (www.digitalinformationworld.com)
- ^ OpenAI’s Sora 2 Sparks Debate Over AI’s Growing Environmental Footprint (www.digitalinformationworld.com)