New York Times Sues Perplexity AI Over Unauthorized Content Use
The lawsuit intensifies the growing clash between news publishers and AI companies over control, copyright, and the future of digital journalism.
The New York Times has filed a major lawsuit against Perplexity AI, accusing the fast-growing artificial intelligence startup of copying, distributing, and displaying millions of its articles without permission as part of the company’s effort to fuel its generative AI platforms.
The action marks one of the most high-profile legal battles yet in the escalating fight between traditional news publishers and emerging AI firms that rely heavily on large-scale content ingestion to develop their tools
The Times argues that Perplexity used both free and paywalled material without authorization, allowing the startup to benefit commercially while undermining the value of the newspaper’s original reporting.
The complaint also alleges that Perplexity’s systems produced fabricated outputs—commonly referred to as hallucinations—and presented them as Times journalism, even placing the newspaper’s registered trademarks beside inaccurate information.
This, the Times says, risks confusing users and damaging the integrity of its brand at a moment when the accuracy of information online is already under intense scrutiny.
In its filing, the Times sought damages, injunctive relief, and broader restrictions that would prevent Perplexity from continuing to leverage its reporting without proper licensing or compensation.
A spokesperson for the Times underscored that the outlet supports responsible advancements in artificial intelligence but opposes what it sees as the unauthorized extraction and monetization of its content.
The case adds to a series of legal challenges facing Perplexity, which has been the subject of mounting complaints from several publishers as the company attempts to secure a foothold in the competitive generative AI market.
Just a day earlier, the Chicago Tribune also lodged a lawsuit, making similar allegations about unauthorized content usage.
Perplexity, in response, has pushed back sharply against the claims, arguing that the lawsuits represent outdated resistance to technological innovation.
The company maintains that it is not engaged in large-scale scraping to train foundational models and instead says it merely indexes publicly available web pages while offering citations for factual references.
The broader legal dispute reflects a growing global debate over how AI companies collect and use copyrighted content, raising questions about fair use, compensation models, and data transparency.
This conflict is not limited to Perplexity alone; major platforms across the tech industry face similar accusations as publishers push back on the unlicensed use of their intellectual property.
The case also follows earlier tensions between the Times and several technology firms, including its ongoing friction with OpenAI, as the newspaper seeks to defend the commercial and editorial value of its journalism.
Meanwhile, Perplexity continues to face legal scrutiny from other major content organizations, including Encyclopedia Britannica as well as media groups linked to Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones and the New York Post.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, comes more than a year after the Times issued a cease-and-desist notice, underscoring the depth of the dispute and signaling a new phase in the legal battle over AI data rights.
At the same time, other technology companies such as Reddit have taken legal action of their own, accusing Perplexity and others of unauthorized data extraction from their platforms.
The growing wave of litigation highlights the shifting power dynamics between content creators and AI developers, especially as news organizations search for sustainable models in a digital ecosystem increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.
The outcome of this legal confrontation could have far-reaching implications for how AI firms access premium journalism, how publishers negotiate licensing, and how courts interpret copyright in the age of machine learning.
