Times Takes Legal Action Against AI Startup Over Content
The New York Times has escalated its legal battle over AI and intellectual property, filing a new lawsuit against the fast-growing AI startup Perplexity. The suit, which follows the Times’ earlier high-profile case against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleges that Perplexity has unlawfully copied and used the newspaper’s copyrighted articles to train its AI-powered search and answer engine, threatening the Times’ business model and the future of professional journalism.
The move underscores a growing rift between major news publishers and generative AI companies that rely heavily on web-scraped content to build and refine their models. With traffic and subscription revenue increasingly at risk, publishers are turning to the courts to assert ownership over their content and demand compensation for its use in AI systems.
Why the New York Times Is Targeting Perplexity
In its complaint, the New York Times accuses Perplexity of systematically scraping millions of its articles without permission and using them to train its AI models, which power its consumer-facing answer engine and enterprise chatbot tools. The Times argues that Perplexity’s outputs often reproduce its content in ways that are “identical or substantially similar” to the original reporting, effectively bypassing the need for users to visit the Times’ website.
The lawsuit claims that Perplexity’s business model is built on the unauthorized use of high-quality journalism, including investigative reporting, feature writing, and opinion pieces. By repackaging this content in AI-generated summaries and answers, the startup allegedly diverts readers, reduces ad impressions, and undermines the Times’ ability to monetize its work through subscriptions and licensing.
The Times is seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a legal declaration that Perplexity’s use of its content constitutes copyright infringement. The case also raises broader questions about whether AI companies can legally train on copyrighted news content without a license.
Perplexity’s Role in the AI Search Landscape
Perplexity has emerged as a leading “answer engine” that uses large language models to provide concise, cited responses to user queries. Unlike traditional search engines that return a list of links, Perplexity delivers direct answers, often pulling information from authoritative news sources like the New York Times.
The company markets itself as a more accurate and trustworthy alternative to conventional search, emphasizing its ability to cite sources and avoid hallucinations. However, this very feature has drawn scrutiny from publishers, who argue that Perplexity is effectively repackaging their journalism without proper attribution or compensation.
Perplexity’s rapid growth and partnerships with major tech platforms have only intensified concerns among news organizations. The Times’ lawsuit is part of a broader industry push to ensure that AI companies cannot profit from news content while simultaneously eroding the traffic and revenue that sustain journalism.
How This Fits Into the Broader AI Copyright Battle
The Times’ action against Perplexity is the latest front in a widening legal war between news publishers and AI firms. In late 2023, the Times filed a landmark copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of using its articles to train ChatGPT and related products without permission.
That case is still ongoing and could set a major precedent for how AI companies are allowed to use copyrighted material. The Times has argued that OpenAI and Microsoft have “reaped substantial savings” by using its content at no cost, while also threatening to divert readers and subscribers away from its own platforms.
The Perplexity lawsuit follows a similar pattern, but with a focus on AI-powered search and summarization tools. It also comes as other publishers, including the Chicago Tribune and several Alden Global Capital-owned newspapers, have launched their own lawsuits against AI companies over content scraping and model training.
Meanwhile, some publishers have chosen to license their content to AI firms rather than litigate. For example, several major news organizations have signed AI licensing deals with Meta, allowing the social media giant to use their articles for training and product development in exchange for payment.
What’s at Stake for Journalism and AI
At the heart of the Times’ lawsuit is a fundamental question: Can AI companies freely scrape and use high-quality journalism to build profitable products, or must they obtain licenses and pay for that content?
The Times argues that its journalism represents a massive investment in reporting, editing, and fact-checking, and that allowing AI companies to exploit that work without compensation undermines the economic foundation of the news industry. If left unchecked, the newspaper warns, AI could erode trust in original reporting while enriching tech platforms at the expense of publishers.
On the other side, AI companies often claim that their use of web content falls under fair use, particularly when it comes to training models. They argue that AI-generated outputs are transformative and do not simply copy or replace the original works.
The outcome of the Times’ case against Perplexity could influence how courts view the use of news content in AI systems, potentially reshaping licensing practices, search behavior, and the future of online journalism.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the New York Times suing Perplexity?
The New York Times is suing Perplexity for allegedly scraping and using millions of its copyrighted articles to train its AI models without permission. The Times claims this practice reproduces its content in AI-generated answers, diverting readers and harming its subscription and advertising revenue.
What does the lawsuit accuse Perplexity of doing?
The lawsuit alleges that Perplexity unlawfully crawls, scrapes, copies, and distributes the Times’ content to power its AI answer engine, chatbot, APIs, and browser. It claims Perplexity’s outputs are often “identical or substantially similar” to the original articles, infringing on the Times’ copyrights.
How is this case different from the Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft?
While both cases involve AI companies using the Times’ content without a license, the OpenAI/Microsoft lawsuit focuses on large language models like ChatGPT and Bing, whereas the Perplexity case targets an AI-powered search and answer engine that directly summarizes and cites news content in its responses.
Are other news publishers taking similar legal action?
Yes. The Chicago Tribune and several other Alden Global Capital-owned newspapers have also sued Perplexity over similar issues. Additionally, those same newspapers previously sued OpenAI and Microsoft, and other publishers like Getty Images and Penske Media (owner of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety) have filed AI-related copyright lawsuits.
Could this lawsuit change how AI companies use news content?
Potentially. If the Times prevails, it could set a precedent requiring AI companies to obtain licenses and pay for news content used in training and product development. This could lead to more AI licensing deals with publishers and reshape how AI search and summarization tools operate.
What are the possible outcomes of the lawsuit?
Possible outcomes include a court ruling that Perplexity’s use of Times content is copyright infringement, leading to damages and an injunction; a settlement involving licensing and payment; or a ruling in favor of Perplexity if the court finds its use falls under fair use. The decision could influence similar cases across the industry.