OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI’s regards to use might apply however are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI’s chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that’s now nearly as good.

The Trump administration’s leading AI czar said this training procedure, called “distilling,” totaled up to intellectual property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other that it’s investigating whether “DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our designs.”

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson called “aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation.”

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on “you stole our material” grounds, much like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to specialists in innovation law, systemcheck-wiki.de who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

“The question is whether ChatGPT outputs” - meaning the responses it generates in reaction to queries - “are copyrightable at all,” Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That’s because it’s uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out qualify as “creativity,” he said.

“There’s a teaching that states innovative expression is copyrightable, but facts and ideas are not,” Kortz, who teaches at Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

“There’s a huge question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always unguarded facts,” he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are secured?

That’s unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times’ copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed “fair use” exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, “that might come back to sort of bite them,” Kortz said. “DeepSeek could say, ‘Hey, weren’t you just stating that training is reasonable use?’”

There may be a distinction between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

“Maybe it’s more transformative to turn news posts into a model” - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - “than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model,” as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

“But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty predicament with regard to the line it’s been toeing concerning fair usage,” he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, e.bike.free.fr though it features its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for wikitravel.org Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

“So perhaps that’s the claim you might possibly bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim,” Chander stated.

“Not, ‘You copied something from me,’ but that you benefited from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract.”

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI’s terms of service need that most claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There’s an exception for claims “to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation.”

There’s a bigger drawback, though, experts stated.

“You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable,” Chander stated. He was describing a January 10 paper, “The Mirage of Expert System Terms of Use Restrictions,” by Stanford Law’s Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University’s Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, “no model developer has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief,” the paper says.

“This is most likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable,” it adds. That’s in part due to the fact that design outputs “are mostly not copyrightable” and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “offer minimal option,” it says.

“I think they are likely unenforceable,” Lemley informed BI of OpenAI’s regards to service, “due to the fact that DeepSeek didn’t take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally will not implement arrangements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition.”

Lawsuits between parties in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, pipewiki.org are constantly difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, “in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it’s doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system,” he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another very complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

“So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed procedure,” Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

“They might have utilized technical measures to obstruct repetitive access to their website,” Lemley stated. “But doing so would also interfere with regular customers.”

He added: “I do not think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website.”

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a demand for accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw remark.

“We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what’s known as distillation, to try to duplicate advanced U.S. AI designs,” Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.