InNovember 2024, India’s Asian News International (ANI) filed a lawsuit alleging the unauthorized use of its copyrighted content to train OpenAI’s large language model. OpenAI’s ChatGPT produced identical or substantially similar outputs to its original content, ANI alleged. The news agency is also requesting OpenAI to delete its stored data.
It is the first major test case of unauthorized use of copyright content to train AI models in the Global South and will set a significant precedent. India’s hybrid model for copyright protection blends restrictive protections for creators with liberal exceptions for research and public welfare. While the Indian Copyright law’s Section 52 specifies activities that do not require a license from the copyright holder, it does not explicitly permit the reproduction of materials for training AI models.
If any country in the Global South is poised for swift development and adoption of AI technologies, it is India. The country has made significant progress in adopting AI technologies in sectors such as healthcare and financial services. A study even suggests that India’s maturity and readiness for AI adoption equals China’s. Projections estimate India’s AI market could reach $17 billion by 2027. India is ChatGPT’s second-largest market, accounting for 11.1% of its 200 million weekly active users. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman visited India in February and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi co-chaired the 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris, highlighting India’s increasing influence in AI development, adoption, and policy discussions.
As AI continues to reshape industries, the outcome of the Indian AI lawsuit will be crucial for creators, tech companies, and global legal systems. The lawsuit filed in India resembles similar cases in the US, where the New York Times and others are suing OpenAI. In its lawsuit, the New York Times alleges that OpenAI scraped data without permission behind its paywall. ANIasserts that its publicly available content was used to train AI models without its consent, and it has asked the court to prevent OpenAI from scraping and mining its publicly available content.
Get the Latest
Sign up to receive regular Bandwidth emails and stay informed about CEPA's work.
OpenAI defends its actions, arguing that training on public data is fair use and transformative. ANI has already blocked OpenAI’s crawlers from accessing its website. In return, OpenAI has added ANI to an internal blocklist, preventing its web crawlers from collecting ANI’s data.
India lacks jurisdiction over the issue because it has no servers in India nor are any of its offices located in the country, OpenAI argued in the Delhi High Court. OpenAI said it cannot delete ANI’s data because US law requires that all training data be stored during the pending US litigation.
At the upcoming hearing in Delhi High Court, ANI must demonstrate concrete harm such as direct market losses or reputational damage due to copyright infringement. To date, OpenAI argues that ANI has failed to produce any specific evidence of harm.
If the court rules in favor of OpenAI, it will shield AI firms from future infringement claims with regard to the use of data for training AI models and enable rapid AI innovation. But if the court rules against OpenAI, AI developers will face numerous lawsuits and will be required to license training data, leading to significant costs and thereby stifling innovation.
The Indian government has alternated between a hands-off approach and a more direct, interventionist role in regulating AI. AI companies must get permission from copyright holders for commercial use unless it falls under fair use exceptions, insists the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Varying opinions divide government agencies regarding the level of required AI regulation ranging from minimal oversight to calls for strict measures.
At the same time, India remains committed to unlocking AI’s full potential, a sentiment echoed in the G20 Ministerial Declaration during India’s presidency. In a statement to the Indian Parliament in 2023, the government promised not to consider “bringing a law or regulating the growth of AI in the country.”
In India, new legislation, not judicial intervention, addresses most technological advancements. But given the current lack of consensus within the government, Indian courts will be crucial in shaping India’s AI future.
Dyuti Pandya is an analyst at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE). Her work focuses on the nexus between trade, technology, and law. Before joining ECIPE, she interned with the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. She holds a master’s degree in law, specializing in international trade law, from Gujarat Maritime University and a dual bachelor’s degree in legal sciences and law (BLS LL.B.) from the University of Mumbai.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.
How the US and Europe Can Come Together
Read More
Read More From Bandwidth
CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy.
Read More