OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may apply but are mainly unenforceable, historydb.date they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and cheaply train a design that's now nearly as good.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead promising what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our content" premises, much like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this question to experts in innovation law, who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a hard time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it generates in response to "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's because it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he said.

"There's a doctrine that says innovative expression is copyrightable, however realities and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a big concern in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a design" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable use," he included.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

"So perhaps that's the suit you might potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you benefited from my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that most claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, specialists stated.

"You ought to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design developer has actually attempted to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited recourse," it says.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally won't enforce contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits between parties in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another very complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed process," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself much better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt normal consumers."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's understood as distillation, to try to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.