New York Times sues Perplexity AI over copyright and trademark claims in landmark case

The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, accusing the generative AI startup of copying proprietary content and falsely attributing fabricated material, raising crucial questions about legal boundaries in AI training and journalism protection.

The New York Times has sued Perplexity AI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the generative AI startup copied, distributed and displayed millions of Times articles without permission to train and operate its products, and that Perplexity’s tools have produced fabricated content wrongly attributed to the newspaper. ^[1][2][4]

According to the complaint, the Times says Perplexity’s business model depends on large-scale scraping of proprietary material , including paywalled content , and that the startup reproduced “identical or substantially similar” portions of articles in response to user queries, seeking damages and injunctive relief to stop the use of its work. ^[1][2][5]

Perplexity has faced similar litigation from other publishers and platforms, including the Chicago Tribune and Reddit, and is said to be valued at around $20 billion; the company maintains it indexes publicly available webpages rather than building foundation models from scraped proprietary text, while also offering commercial programmes intended to compensate publishers. ^[2][6]

The dispute highlights a broader industry clash over how copyrighted journalism should be used in AI , with publishers arguing that unlicensed use undermines journalism’s economic model and public-interest role, and some in the tech community warning that expansive litigation could chill innovation unless clearer legal rules emerge. Public reaction on social platforms has been split, with many journalists rallying behind the Times under hashtags such as #SupportJournalism, and technology proponents calling for legal clarity. ^[2][3][public reactions]

The Times also alleges trademark violations under the Lanham Act, saying Perplexity’s interfaces have displayed the newspaper’s marks alongside content that is false or fabricated, a claim that amplifies the paper’s concerns about reputational harm from so-called “hallucinations.” ^[2][4][7]

Perplexity has attempted negotiated and commercial remedies: it launched a Publishers’ Program offering participating outlets revenue shares, introduced Comet Plus (allocating a large share of subscription revenue to partners) and struck licensing deals such as one with Getty Images , steps the startup says reflect efforts to work with rights holders even as publishers press litigation. ^[6][3]

The case , one of several high-profile suits confronting generative AI firms this year , is likely to test legal boundaries around indexing, training and attribution, and could set important precedents for how news organisations are compensated and protected as AI tools proliferate. According to reporting, both sides frame the dispute within long-running tensions between media economics and technological change. ^[2][3][4]

##Reference Map:

• ^[1] (OpenTools) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5
• ^[2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
• ^[3] (Axios) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
• ^[4] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
• ^[5] (TheWrap) – Paragraph 2
• ^[6] (TechCrunch) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6
• ^[7] (Business Standard) – Paragraph 5

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, and covered by multiple reputable outlets on the same day. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-perplexity-ai-infringing-copyright-works-2025-12-05/?utm_source=openai))

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
Direct quotes from The New York Times spokesperson Graham James are consistent across sources, indicating original reporting. ([thewrap.com](https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit/?utm_source=openai))

Source reliability

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative is reported by reputable organisations, including Reuters, Axios, and The Guardian, enhancing its credibility. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-perplexity-ai-infringing-copyright-works-2025-12-05/?utm_source=openai))

Plausability check

Score:
10

Notes:
The claims are plausible, with multiple sources confirming the lawsuit and the allegations of copyright infringement. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-perplexity-ai-infringing-copyright-works-2025-12-05/?utm_source=openai))

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is fresh, with consistent and original reporting from reputable sources, and the claims are plausible and well-supported.