Delhi HC dismisses allegations of copyright infringement against ChatGPT

New Delhi: In a redress to OpenAI, the Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed copyright infringement claims against ChatGPT parent company and dismissed a case filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI), broadcasters and the Indian music industry.

The court found no copyright infringement in the San Francisco-based company’s use of copyrighted material to train large language models (LLMs) and held that such use fell within the exceptions under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.

In the first copyright case filed against ChatGPT in India, the court held that ChatGPT’s outputs were not substantially similar to ANI’s copyrighted works and that the news agency had failed to establish that the chatbot had memorized or reproduced its original content.

The court said that granting an injunction against OpenAI would cause irreparable harm not only to the company, but also to the public who use its AI services.

The first major decision by an Indian court on generative AI copyright concerns is likely to impact how courts will interpret copyright law in the era of generative AI and define the liabilities of AI developers operating in India.

The dispute began in November 2024, when news agency Asian News International (ANI) filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the company used copyrighted news reports without permission to train ChatGPT. ANI also alleged that the chatbot could reproduce portions of its content and produce false or “hallucinatory” responses attributed to the agency, potentially damaging its credibility.

The case then went beyond ANI, expanding the copyright issue to broadcasters and music labels, with the Federation of Indian Publishers (FIP), Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) and the Indian music industry (IMI) joining in as intervenors.

FIP and DNPA members include HT Digital/HT Media (publisher of Mint and Hindustan Times), The Hindu, India Today, Network18, NDTV, Indian Express, ABP Group, Dainik Jagran and Times Internet. T-Series, Saregama India and Sony Music India were companies supporting advocacy in the music industry.

These organizations argued that using public domain copyrighted content to train AI models without a license violates intellectual property rights and undermines the economic value of original journalism and creativity. IMI also alleged that OpenAI used copyrighted sound recordings, lyrics, and musical compositions to train AI models without licensing or permission.

OpenAI denied the allegations. He argued that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not underlying facts, and that ANI failed to identify specific instances where ChatGPT had unlawfully reproduced its work. The company also said that ANI’s website is blocking future training of its models in October 2024.

OpenAI said its AI models are trained on publicly available data and learn statistical patterns, rather than reproducing copyrighted works.

The company also objected to the maintainability of the case, arguing that Indian courts did not have jurisdiction because its servers and core infrastructure were located outside the country.

Considering the novelty of the issues involved, the court appointed Professor Arul George Scaria of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, and appointed Adarsh ​​Ramanujan as *amici curiae* to assist it. The decision came after 32 hearings and the defenses ended on March 27.

The decision is also being closely watched due to India’s importance to OpenAI. The company said the country has nearly 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users, making it one of the largest markets globally. According to Statcounter, ChatGPT held nearly 78% of India’s AI chatbot market in June 2026, well ahead of rivals such as Google Gemini, Claude, Microsoft Copilot and Perplexity.

The decision comes amid a growing number of copyright lawsuits against AI companies around the world. OpenAI faces similar lawsuits in the United States and other jurisdictions, including a high-profile lawsuit filed by *The New York Times*, which alleges that millions of its articles were used to train AI models without permission.