The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, accusing the San Francisco startup of unauthorised use of its content and trademarks, amid a broader wave of legal actions challenging AI firms over copyright violations and data scraping practices.
The New York Times on Friday sued Perplexity AI, accusing the San Francisco startup of illegally copying, distributing and displaying millions of the newspaper’s articles without permission to train and operate its generative AI tools. According to the original report, the complaint also alleges Perplexity has displayed New York Times content alongside the paper’s registered trademarks, creating the misleading impression that fabricated AI-generated material is attributable to the newspaper. [1][2]
The Times says Perplexity’s business model depends on large-scale scraping of publisher content, including paywalled material, to power its answer-engine and generative features. Industry data shows other major publishers have made similar claims against Perplexity in recent months. [1][2]
Perplexity is already the target of a wave of lawsuits. Publishers and reference firms , including Dow Jones and the New York Post, the Chicago Tribune, Merriam‑Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica , have brought suits alleging copyright infringement and trademark misuse by the AI firm. Reuters reporting notes several plaintiffs say Perplexity’s product reproduces material verbatim or diverts traffic and revenue from original sites. [1][3][4]
Those cases sit alongside other legal and commercial disputes: social media company Reddit has sued over alleged data scraping, and Amazon has filed suit claiming Perplexity covertly accessed user accounts for an AI shopping feature. Perplexity has denied many of these allegations, saying it indexes publicly available pages rather than scraping to build foundation models. [1][3]
Perplexity has attracted heavy investment while under legal pressure , raising roughly $1.5bn over three years and closing a $200m round in September that valued it at about $20bn, according to reporting. High‑profile backers include Nvidia and Jeff Bezos, underscoring how capital has flowed into AI firms even as legal risks mount. [1][2]
The New York Times also invokes the Lanham Act, alleging false association and trademark violations where AI‑generated “hallucinations” are displayed alongside the paper’s marks. Legal experts say such claims amplify the debate over whether traditional IP and trademark law can police the new behaviours of generative AI systems. According to the original reporting, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages to prevent further use of their content. [1][2][3]
The unfolding litigation illustrates escalating tensions between content owners and AI developers over the legal and ethical boundaries of training and deploying generative systems. Industry observers say these cases could set important precedents for how courts treat large‑scale scraping, attribution, and the commercial use of proprietary content in AI products. [1][2][3]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [3] (Reuters) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [4] (CNBC) – Paragraph 3
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the lawsuit filed on December 5, 2025. No earlier versions of this specific lawsuit have been identified. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. No similar content has appeared more than 7 days earlier. The article includes updated data and does not recycle older material.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes were identified in the provided text. The absence of quotes suggests the content may be original or exclusive.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from reputable organisations: The Guardian and Reuters. This enhances the credibility of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with known industry practices. The New York Times has previously taken legal action against AI companies for similar issues, such as the lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/6ea53a8ad3efa06ee4643b697df0ba57?utm_source=openai)) The tone and language used are consistent with typical corporate communications. No excessive or off-topic details are present, and the structure is focused on the main claim.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, originates from reputable sources, and presents plausible claims without significant issues.
