New York — The New York Times filed a lawsuit against artificial intelligence startup Perplexity AI on Friday, alleging that the company illegally copied, distributed, and displayed millions of its articles without permission to power generative AI products.
The case, brought in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, underscores growing legal tensions between traditional media organizations and emerging AI technologies.
The lawsuit claims that Perplexity AI’s tools not only reproduced copyrighted material but also generated fabricated content, known in the industry as “hallucinations,” which was falsely attributed to The New York Times alongside its registered trademarks.
The Times contends that Perplexity’s business model relied heavily on scraping web content, including paywalled material, to build and promote its AI products.
“While we support ethical and responsible AI development, we firmly object to Perplexity’s unlicensed use of our content to develop and promote their products,” said Graham James, a spokesperson for The New York Times.
Perplexity AI has been facing similar accusations from multiple publishers, including the Chicago Tribune, Encyclopedia Britannica, and media conglomerate Dow Jones, which owns the New York Post.
Reddit also filed a lawsuit in October accusing Perplexity and three other companies of unlawfully scraping its data. Jesse Dwyer, Perplexity’s head of communications, dismissed the lawsuits as an unsuccessful tactic by publishers attempting to resist emerging technologies.
“Our platform indexes web pages to provide factual citations and does not scrape content for training foundation models,” Dwyer said. Legal and AI experts suggest that the case could set a precedent for how copyrighted content is used in generative AI systems.
“Courts are now being asked to balance intellectual property rights with the rapid growth of AI technologies,” said Anita Desai, a technology law professor at Columbia University.
“The outcome could influence how publishers license content to AI companies moving forward.” Intellectual property attorney Michael Hsu added that the lawsuit highlights the challenges in defining fair use for generative AI.
“AI companies argue they are creating something transformative, but if the underlying data is copied without permission, publishers have strong grounds for legal action,” he said. Perplexity AI, based in San Francisco, is currently valued at around $20 billion.
Its products compete in a crowded AI market alongside tools developed by OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. The New York Times has previously allowed limited use of its content by Amazon for AI products like Alexa, indicating selective licensing agreements can be possible in the industry.
Reuters reported last year that multiple AI companies bypassed a web standard designed to prevent scraping, raising concerns among publishers over unauthorized content use.
Analysts say this has fueled a wave of litigation, as traditional media companies seek to protect revenue streams tied to subscription and advertising models.
Journalists and media professionals have expressed mixed views on the lawsuit. “We are seeing AI tools that can generate entire news stories in seconds,” said Julia Morales, an investigative reporter in New York.
The question is whether these tools can be used responsibly without infringing on the labor and rights of news organizations. Meanwhile, Perplexity users have defended the platform’s functionality.
“I rely on it for quick summaries of complex topics,” said Andrew Lee, a software engineer in San Francisco. “It’s helpful for research, but I understand why publishers are concerned about attribution and accuracy.”
Legal observers predict that the New York Times case may influence future agreements between AI companies and publishers.
“We could see more structured licensing arrangements or even regulatory guidance to clarify the boundaries of content use for AI,” said Desai.
Industry watchers also note that generative AI continues to evolve rapidly, making it likely that other lawsuits will follow unless clearer standards are established.
Perplexity AI’s response, as well as the court’s interpretation of copyright law, will be closely watched by both technology and media sectors.
The lawsuit by The New York Times against Perplexity AI marks the latest escalation in a broader conflict between publishers and AI companies over the use of copyrighted content.
While AI tools promise new efficiencies and capabilities, the legal and ethical boundaries of content use remain unsettled. The case could have significant implications for both media organizations seeking to protect intellectual property and AI startups striving to expand their technologies.
