Judge narrows NYT copyright MDL after Supreme Court's Cox ruling: 'material contribution' claims against OpenAI and Microsoft dismissed with prejudice; publishers barred from adding new contributory theories against Microsoft

What happened

On August 6, 2026, Judge Sidney H. Stein (S.D.N.Y.) issued a memorandum order in the consolidated New York Times copyright MDL (In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 25-md-3143), relating to the New York Times, Daily News, and Center for Investigative Reporting cases.

• The New York Times, Daily News, and CIR voluntarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE their contributory copyright infringement claims against OpenAI premised on the "material contribution" theory, in light of the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, which held that "material contribution" is not a valid theory of contributory liability for copyright infringement. OpenAI's Rule 12(c) motion was therefore denied as moot.
• The NYT and Daily News also voluntarily dismissed with prejudice their trademark dilution claims against OpenAI/Microsoft.
• The NYT and Daily News asked for leave to amend their complaints to assert different contributory-liability theories against Microsoft ("intentional inducement" of OpenAI's infringement and provision of services "tailored to infringement"). Judge Stein DENIED both motions: the Cox decision did not change the viability of those theories, which existed before Cox, so the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for amending after the scheduling-order deadline.
• The NYT and Daily News must file amended complaints in conformity with the order within 15 days.

Why it matters to creators

This materially narrows the most closely watched news-publisher AI-training case. After Cox, "material contribution" claims against AI companies for end-user infringement are off the table nationwide, and publishers here lost their chance to substitute new theories against Microsoft because they waited too long. The order signals that post-Cox AI copyright litigation will run through inducement/tailored-services theories, which require proving the AI company intended its service for infringement — a substantially higher bar.

What is not yet known

• Which of the remaining claims (direct infringement, DMCA, and other theories against both companies) will survive to trial; the parties' summary judgment motions were filed in September 2026 and their rulings are pending.
• Whether the plaintiffs will appeal the denied amendment or the scope of the dismissal.