The New York Times suing perplexity highlights growing tensions between publishers and AI companies over unlicensed content use.
 |
| A copy of The New York Times rests on a laptop keyboard in an illustration photo taken on September 16, 2025. Photo by Jaap Arriens/Nur/Getty Images |
The New York Times suing perplexity marks a significant turning point in the relationship between major news publishers and artificial-intelligence companies that rely on their journalism for training and output. In its newly filed lawsuit, the Times accuses Perplexity of systematically using its copyrighted material without authorization, accusing the startup of repackaging and distributing its journalism in what it describes as “verbatim or near-verbatim” responses to user prompts. This lawsuit deepens a yearlong rift between the two organizations and signals an intensifying effort by established media outlets to defend their intellectual property as AI products grow more powerful and widely used.
The Times asserts in its legal filing that Perplexity’s AI models have repeatedly crawled its website and extracted original reporting, photos, and multimedia content, which the company then uses to generate outputs that closely mirror the newspaper’s own work. According to the complaint, Perplexity’s Comet AI assistant presents detailed summaries of paywalled articles that, in some cases, reproduce the structure, facts, and language of Times reporting. By centering its argument on alleged verbatim copying, the Times contends that the startup relies on its journalism in a way that cannot be justified as fair use.
Perplexity has not issued an immediate response to the lawsuit, but its leadership has previously rejected accusations of wrongdoing. Even so, the New York Times suing perplexity adds to a growing list of legal challenges facing the AI firm. The Chicago Tribune filed a similar copyright-infringement suit on the same day, arguing that Perplexity has used its articles without any licensing agreements in place.
The lawsuit represents a broader shift in how media organizations are approaching artificial-intelligence platforms that have built their products, at least in part, on news content created by traditional publishers. While some news outlets have opted for partnerships and licensing deals — recognising that AI-generated summaries, search tools, and assistants will shape how people access information — others have chosen to push back through the courts.
The New York Times suing perplexity amplifies the debate about whether AI companies should be required to pay publishers for their journalism, much like tech giants were eventually pressured to fund news content in markets such as Australia and Canada. The 2024 showdown between Perplexity and the Times began with a cease-and-desist notice from the newspaper, warning the startup to stop accessing its content without permission. The Times escalated the matter in 2025 by issuing another notice after determining that Perplexity’s systems continued to use its articles despite the warnings.
Perplexity’s chief executive, Aravind Srinivas, has previously pushed the idea that AI companies want to collaborate with newsrooms rather than undermine them. He insisted last year that the startup was “very much interested in working with every single publisher” and had “no interest in being anyone’s antagonist.” But the Times argues that Perplexity’s actions contradict those statements, citing repeated instances of unauthorized scraping and repurposing of its reporting.
In addition to copyright infringement, the lawsuit accuses Perplexity of fabricating information and attributing it to the Times. The filing claims that Perplexity-generated videos, podcasts, and images have incorporated Times branding or reporting styles while presenting information the Times never published. By alleging false attribution, the Times is attempting to frame the issue not only as a copyright violation but also as a reputational threat.
This accusation is notable because publishers fear that AI outputs that appear authoritative but contain fabricated details — sometimes referred to as hallucinations — could undermine public trust. When those hallucinations are linked to high-profile news outlets, the reputational stakes are even higher. The Times argues that Perplexity’s behavior risks confusing audiences about what journalism is genuine and what has been manufactured by an AI model.
As the New York Times suing perplexity becomes a central issue in industry conversations, media companies are increasingly concerned about how AI-generated content circulates online. Some fear that news audiences may not distinguish between original reporting and AI-generated summaries, especially when those summaries closely resemble text from paywalled sources.
This lawsuit is not the first time an AI company has faced copyright claims, nor is it the only legal battle that Perplexity is fighting. The Wall Street Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones, along with the New York Post, has also sued Perplexity for copyright infringement. A judge recently declined a motion by Perplexity to dismiss that case, allowing proceedings to continue.
At the same time, major media conglomerates like News Corp have taken a different route by signing licensing deals with AI firms. News Corp’s agreement with OpenAI is one of the most prominent examples of a partnership that financially compensates a publisher while allowing an AI developer to legally use its content to train language models.
The Times itself is pursuing a multipronged strategy. While the New York Times suing perplexity adds to the newspaper’s litigation efforts, it is simultaneously working with Amazon on an AI partnership. This dual approach reflects how publishers are attempting to balance protecting their intellectual property with embracing the technological tools that may define the future of news distribution.
The intensifying legal confrontation comes at a moment when AI assistants are rapidly becoming integrated into search engines, mobile devices, and productivity tools. As these systems improve their ability to generate long, accurate summaries of news stories, publishers fear that readers may increasingly rely on AI assistants instead of visiting news websites.
The Times argues that Perplexity’s business model depends on unlicensed access to high-quality journalism, which it uses to build a competitive product without bearing the costs of reporting. From foreign correspondents to investigative teams, the Times invests heavily in original reporting each year. The lawsuit claims that Perplexity is trying to benefit from that investment without contributing financially to the newsroom that produced the content.
The New York Times suing perplexity narrative also fits into a larger debate about the economic sustainability of journalism in an era where digital advertising revenue has been dominated by tech companies. Publishers see licensing fees from AI companies as a potential new revenue stream at a time when many newsrooms are shrinking.
The outcome of this case may influence how AI companies collect data, train models, and present information to users. If courts determine that Perplexity violated copyright law by repackaging news content in near-verbatim formats, other AI companies may be forced to rethink how they gather and process news data. Conversely, if Perplexity successfully defends itself, the precedent could give AI firms more freedom to summarize and repurpose journalism without direct permission.
For now, the lawsuit adds more pressure to a growing debate over how human-created journalism should coexist with generative AI. The Times insists that unless new rules or licensing frameworks are enforced, AI companies will continue to use high-quality reporting without compensating the people who create it.
As the New York Times suing perplexity continues to unfold, media executives, AI developers, policymakers, and journalists will be watching closely. The dispute is not simply about one lawsuit — it is about defining the balance of power between news creators and artificial-intelligence companies in a rapidly changing information ecosystem.
