OpenAI and Microsoft Moved to Strike Litigation Report

The defendants challenged a non-peer-reviewed report on AI market impact, alleging concealed expert funding.

Updated on Sept. 24, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence

Bold flat-color editorial illustration depicting a stack of legal files, representing the scrutiny of evidence in intellectual property litigation. — OpenAI and Microsoft moved to exclude a non-peer-reviewed expert report from their U.S. copyright litigation, alleging undisclosed funding ties. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should litigants be required to publicly disclose all funding sources for research presented in court?

OpenAI and Microsoft filed a motion in U.S. multidistrict litigation to exclude a report concerning the market dilution of AI-generated books. The companies claim the plaintiffs presented the research as independent when it was allegedly funded by their legal counsel.

Why it matters

This dispute centers on the validity of evidence in high-stakes copyright litigation, as the defendants argue the plaintiffs lacked proof of harm after years of discovery. It highlights the scrutiny applied to non-peer-reviewed research used to substantiate claims in intellectual property disputes.

The defendants contend that Professor Tuhin Chakrabarty of Stony Brook University received $100,000 to produce the non-peer-reviewed report. This research was allegedly used by the plaintiffs to argue market harm despite being outside the formal expert-disclosure process.

The players

OpenAI

An AI research and deployment company behind the GPT large language model family.

Microsoft

A global technology corporation that provides cloud infrastructure and exclusive distribution for OpenAI's models.

Susman Godfrey LLP

A litigation firm specializing in complex commercial disputes and class action lawsuits.

Tuhin Chakrabarty

A professor at Stony Brook University who authored the research report on AI market dilution.

The details

OpenAI and Microsoft allege that Susman Godfrey LLP, representing the plaintiff book and news publishers, concealed the financial ties behind the report. The filing argues that the study was presented as independent research to influence the litigation, rather than undergoing standard peer review or expert-disclosure protocols. The companies seek to exclude this data from the ongoing multidistrict litigation entirely.

September 24, 2026: OpenAI and Microsoft filed the motion to strike.

The Tech Race

The motion marks a procedural escalation in the ongoing U.S. multidistrict litigation concerning generative AI copyright infringement. It highlights the growing tension between plaintiffs seeking to establish market harm and tech companies challenging the evidentiary standards of research reports.

This development serves as a reminder of how intellectual property claims are built and challenged in the era of generative tools. Readers should monitor court records for the judge's ruling on the motion, which will determine if the report remains admissible evidence in the litigation.

The takeaway

This filing underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to prove systemic economic harm in copyright lawsuits against AI developers. Watch for the court's upcoming decision on the motion, as it will signal how judges plan to handle externally funded research in these complex cases.