The New York Times (NYT) has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against AI search startup Perplexity, marking its second legal action against an artificial intelligence company. The lawsuit, filed on Friday, positions the NYT alongside other media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune, that have recently initiated similar legal proceedings against Perplexity.
The NYT's suit alleges that Perplexity "provides commercial products to its own users that substitute" for the newspaper's offerings "without permission or remuneration." This legal challenge is part of a long-term strategy by publishers who, while acknowledging the unstoppable rise of AI, are using lawsuits as leverage to compel AI companies into formal licensing agreements that compensate content creators and safeguard the economic viability of original journalism.
Perplexity's Content Use Under Scrutiny
Central to the NYT's complaint is Perplexity's method of generating responses to user queries. The AI search engine utilizes retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) products, such as its chatbots and Comet browser AI assistant, to gather information from various websites and databases. The lawsuit claims that Perplexity then "repackages the original content in written responses to users," often resulting in "verbatim or near-verbatim reproductions, summaries, or abridgments of the original content, including The Times's copyrighted works."
"While we believe in the ethical and responsible use and development of AI, we firmly object to Perplexity's unlicensed use of our content to develop and promote their products," Graham James, a spokesperson for The Times, said in a statement. "We will continue to work to hold companies accountable that refuse to recognize the value of our work."
James further elaborated that Perplexity's RAG technology enables it to "crawl the internet and steal content from behind our paywall and deliver it to its customers in real time. That content should only be accessible to our paying subscribers."
Beyond direct copyright infringement, The Times also claims that Perplexity's search engine has "hallucinated" information and falsely attributed it to the outlet, thereby damaging its brand reputation.
Perplexity's Response and Industry Context
In response to mounting pressure, Perplexity has made efforts to address compensation demands. Last year, it launched a Publishers' Program, offering participating outlets like Gannett, TIME, Fortune, and the Los Angeles Times a share of ad revenue. In August, Perplexity also introduced Comet Plus, which allocates 80% of its $5 monthly fee to participating publishers, and recently secured a multi-year licensing deal with Getty Images.
Jesse Dwyer, Perplexity's head of communications, offered a historical perspective to TechCrunch, stating, "Publishers have been suing new tech companies for a hundred years, starting with radio, TV, the internet, social media and now AI. Fortunately it's never worked, or we'd all be talking about this by telegraph." However, historical precedent shows that publishers have, at times, won or significantly influenced major legal battles over new technologies, leading to settlements, licensing regimes, and court precedents.
A Broader Legal Battle for AI Content
The NYT's lawsuit against Perplexity follows a cease and desist letter sent over a year ago, demanding Perplexity stop using its content for summaries. The newspaper claims it has contacted Perplexity multiple times over the past 18 months regarding the unauthorized use of its content.
This is not The Times's first legal challenge against an AI firm. It is also suing OpenAI and its backer Microsoft, alleging that their AI systems were trained on millions of its articles without compensation. OpenAI has countered with a "fair use" defense and accused the NYT of manipulating ChatGPT to find evidence for its case. The ongoing nature of this case, alongside a similar lawsuit against OpenAI competitor Anthropic, could establish significant precedents for "fair use" in AI training. In the Anthropic suit, which involved authors and publishers suing over the use of pirated books for AI training, a court ruled that while lawfully acquired books might fall under fair use, pirated ones infringe on copyrights. Anthropic subsequently agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement.
The legal pressure on Perplexity is intensifying. Last year, News Corp, which owns major outlets like The Wall Street Journal and New York Post, made similar claims. In 2025, this list expanded to include Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun, and Reddit. Furthermore, outlets such as Wired and Forbes have accused Perplexity of plagiarism and unethical web scraping, particularly from websites that explicitly block AI scraping—a claim recently confirmed by Cloudflare.
In its current suit, The Times is seeking financial compensation for alleged damages and a court order to prohibit Perplexity from further using its content.
Publishers Seek Fair Compensation, Not AI Boycott
It is important to note that The Times is not inherently opposed to collaborating with AI firms that offer fair compensation for journalistic work. Earlier this year, the newspaper signed a multi-year deal with Amazon to license its content for training the tech giant's AI models. Similarly, other prominent publishers and media companies have entered into licensing agreements with AI firms, allowing their content to be used for training and featured in chatbot responses. OpenAI, for instance, has inked deals with the Associated Press, Axel Springer, Vox Media, The Atlantic, and others.
This ongoing legal and commercial landscape underscores the critical debate over intellectual property rights in the age of generative AI, with publishers striving to ensure their valuable content is not exploited without proper remuneration.
