Common ChatGPT customers (amongst whom embody the writer of this text) might or might not have observed that the hit chatbot from OpenAI permits customers to enter right into a “momentary chat” that’s designed to wipe all the data exchanged between the consumer and the underlying AI mannequin as quickly because the chat session is closed by the consumer. As well as, OpenAI additionally permits customers to manually delete prior ChatGPT classes from the sidebar on the net and desktop/cell apps by left-clicking or control-clicking, or holding down/lengthy urgent on them from the selector.
Nevertheless, this week, OpenAI discovered itself dealing with criticism from a few of stated ChatGPT customers after they found that the corporate has not really been deleting these chat logs as beforehand indicated.
As AI influencer and software program engineer Simon Willison wrote on his private weblog: “Paying clients of [OpenAI’s] APIs might nicely make the choice to change to different suppliers who can provide retention insurance policies that aren’t subverted by this court docket order!”
“You’re telling me my deleted chatgpt chats are literally not deleted and is being saved to be investigated by a decide?” posted X consumer @ns123abc, a remark that drew over 1,000,000 views.
One other consumer, @kepano, added, “you possibly can ‘delete’ a ChatGPT chat, nonetheless all chats should be retained because of authorized obligations ?”.
As an alternative, OpenAI confirmed it has been preserving deleted and momentary consumer chat logs since mid-Might 2025 in response to a federal court docket order, although it didn’t disclose this to customers till yesterday, June fifth.
The order, embedded under and issued on Might 13, 2025, by U.S. Justice of the Peace Decide Ona T. Wang, requires OpenAI to “protect and segregate all output log knowledge that may in any other case be deleted on a going ahead foundation,” together with chats deleted by consumer request or because of privateness obligations.
The court docket’s directive stems from The New York Occasions (NYT) v. OpenAI and Microsoft, a now three-year-old copyright case nonetheless being argued during which the NYT’s attorneys allege that OpenAI’s language fashions regurgitate copyrighted information content material verbatim. The plaintiffs argue that logs, together with these customers might have deleted, might comprise infringing outputs related to the lawsuit.
Whereas OpenAI complied with the order instantly, it didn’t publicly notify affected customers for greater than three weeks, when OpenAI issued a weblog put up and an FAQ describing the authorized mandate and outlining who’s impacted.
Nevertheless, OpenAI is inserting the blame squarely on the NYT and the decide’s order, saying it believes the preservation demand to be “baseless.”
OpenAI clarifies what’s occurring with the court docket order to protect ChatGPT consumer logs — together with which chats are impacted
In a weblog put up printed yesterday, OpenAI Chief Working Officer Brad Lightcap defended the corporate’s place and acknowledged that it was advocating for consumer privateness and safety in opposition to an over-broad judicial order, writing:
“The New York Occasions and different plaintiffs have made a sweeping and pointless demand of their baseless lawsuit in opposition to us: retain shopper ChatGPT and API buyer knowledge indefinitely. This basically conflicts with the privateness commitments we’ve got made to our customers.”
The put up clarified that ChatGPT Free, Plus, Professional, and Workforce customers, together with API clients with no Zero Information Retention (ZDR) settlement, are affected by the preservation order, that means even when customers on these plans delete their chats or use momentary chat mode, their chats shall be saved for the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, subscribers to the ChatGPT Enterprise and Edu customers, in addition to API purchasers utilizing ZDR endpoints, are not impacted by the order and their chats shall be deleted as directed.
The retained knowledge is held beneath authorized maintain, that means it’s saved in a safe, segregated system and solely accessible to a small variety of authorized and safety personnel.
“This knowledge will not be routinely shared with The New York Occasions or anybody else,” Lightcap emphasised in OpenAI’s weblog put up.
Sam Altman floats new idea of ‘AI privilege’ permitting for confidential conversations between fashions and customers, just like talking to a human physician or lawyer
OpenAI CEO and co-founder Sam Altman additionally addressed the problem publicly in a put up from his account on the social community X final night time, writing:
“just lately the NYT requested a court docket to drive us to not delete any consumer chats. we expect this was an inappropriate request that units a nasty precedent. we’re interesting the choice. we are going to combat any demand that compromises our customers’ privateness; it is a core precept.”
He additionally steered a broader authorized and moral framework could also be wanted for AI privateness:
“we’ve got been pondering just lately concerning the want for one thing like ‘AI privilege’; this actually accelerates the necessity to have the dialog.”
“imo speaking to an AI must be like speaking to a lawyer or a physician.”
“i hope society will determine this out quickly.“
The notion of AI privilege—as a possible authorized customary—echoes attorney-client and doctor-patient confidentiality.
Whether or not such a framework would acquire traction in courtrooms or coverage circles stays to be seen, however Altman’s remarks point out OpenAI might more and more advocate for such a shift.
What comes subsequent for OpenAI and your momentary/deleted chats?
OpenAI has filed a proper objection to the court docket’s order, requesting that it’s vacated.
In court docket filings, the corporate argues that the demand lacks a factual foundation and that preserving billions of further knowledge factors is neither crucial nor proportionate.
Decide Wang, in a Might 27 listening to, indicated the order is momentary. She instructed the events to develop a sampling plan to check whether or not deleted consumer knowledge materially differs from retained logs. OpenAI was ordered to submit that proposal by at the moment, June 6, however I’ve but to see the submitting.
What it means for enterprises and decision-makers in command of ChatGPT utilization in company environments
Whereas the order exempts ChatGPT Enterprise and API clients utilizing ZDR endpoints, the broader authorized and reputational implications matter deeply for professionals chargeable for deploying and scaling AI options inside organizations.
Those that oversee the total lifecycle of enormous language fashions—from knowledge ingestion to fine-tuning and integration—might want to reassess assumptions about knowledge governance. If user-facing elements of an LLM are topic to authorized preservation orders, it raises pressing questions on the place knowledge goes after it leaves a safe endpoint, and how you can isolate, log, or anonymize high-risk interactions.
Any platform touching OpenAI APIs should validate which endpoints (e.g., ZDR vs non-ZDR) are used and guarantee knowledge dealing with insurance policies are mirrored in consumer agreements, audit logs, and inside documentation.
Even when ZDR endpoints are used, knowledge lifecycle insurance policies might require overview to verify that downstream programs (e.g., analytics, logging, backup) don’t inadvertently retain transient interactions that had been presumed short-lived.
Safety officers chargeable for managing threat should now broaden menace modeling to incorporate authorized discovery as a possible vector. Groups should confirm whether or not OpenAI’s backend retention practices align with inside controls and third-party threat assessments, and whether or not customers are counting on options like “momentary chat” that not perform as anticipated beneath authorized preservation.
A brand new flashpoint for consumer privateness and safety
This second isn’t just a authorized skirmish; it’s a flashpoint within the evolving dialog round AI privateness and knowledge rights. By framing the problem as a matter of “AI privilege,” OpenAI is successfully proposing a brand new social contract for the way clever programs deal with confidential inputs.
Whether or not courts or lawmakers settle for that framing stays unsure. However for now, OpenAI is caught in a balancing act—between authorized compliance, enterprise assurances, and consumer belief—and dealing with louder questions on who controls your knowledge once you discuss to a machine.
