There is a legal distinction between document retention, which is what OpenAI was ordered to do, versus re architecting to generate documents for logless providers.

▲

ZoneZealot 4 hours ago | parent [-]

OpenAI were already logging all the chats, it's just that if the end-user decided to delete their chat history - they would respect that at the time and also delete it server side (apparently). The court order mandated them keep the chat content even if the end-user wanted it deleted.

They were required to change the way their systems worked, to no longer respect a user's chat deletion request. That means a non-chat-logging company can of course be forced to change the way their system works, to instead log chats.

In the same way Apple can not only be forced to hand over back-doored access to UK users iCloud data (when Apple also hold a copy of the keys), they can also be forced to change the way their OS works to prevent the scenario where Apple don't hold the keys (preventing Advanced Data Protection from being enabled). The USA could force the same thing via the CLOUD Act.

	▲	poplarsol 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"You have to make a change either way" is not the standard. Of course legislation can be passed or a settlement signed that mandates whatever, but there is well established civil procedure around document retention in the context of discovery for ongoing litigation that does not extend to demands to start generating business records that are not currently created.