The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI in the US, accusing the startup of using its content without permission to train generative AI tools, amid a wave of legal challenges facing AI companies over content use and intellectual property rights.
The New York Times has sued Perplexity AI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing the startup of copying, distributing and publicly displaying millions of Times articles without permission to train and operate its generative AI tools. The complaint also alleges Perplexity fabricated content and falsely attributed it to The Times by displaying such outputs alongside the newspaper’s trademarks, and seeks damages and an injunction to stop the use of its content. [2][1][7]
According to court filings and prior correspondence, The Times says Perplexity’s business model depends on unauthorised scraping of web content, including paywalled material, and points to earlier cease-and-desist steps the publisher took after finding its content appearing in Perplexity outputs. Perplexity has countered that it indexes publicly available web pages rather than building foundation models from scraped paywalled archives. The dispute follows earlier complaints from outlets and reporting that questioned Perplexity’s content‑collection practices. [6][2][7]
Perplexity is facing a raft of parallel legal challenges. Publishers including the Chicago Tribune, Dow Jones titles and others have lodged copyright suits; social platforms and rival companies have pressed claims over scraping, trademark use and covert data collection; and a separate suit from a software firm alleges Perplexity’s use of the name “Perplexity” infringes an existing trademark. Collectively, these cases portray a company under intense legal pressure as it scales. [7][4]
The litigation sits against a broader wave of lawsuits by news organisations targeting AI developers for using journalistic work to train models without licences. Recent rulings have allowed similar consolidated claims to proceed against large AI vendors, emphasising core copyright allegations while dismissing or narrowing others. Publishers argue verbatim regurgitation of articles and commercial use of reporting threatens their business model; tech firms often invoke fair use or point to licensing deals some have reached with news groups. [3][5][1]
Industry observers say the Perplexity and New York Times actions sharpen the legal and ethical questions facing AI companies: how they source training data, when licensing is required, and how to prevent and label fabricated outputs. The cases are likely to accelerate commitments to licensing, clearer provenance of training sources, revenue‑sharing schemes and technical measures to verify consent and attribute content , changes driven as much by legal risk and reputational exposure as by commercial partnership opportunities. [1][7][6]
For Perplexity the stakes are high: the company has attracted substantial investment and a multibillion‑dollar valuation while contesting many of the allegations. How courts interpret copyright, trademark and related claims in these suits will shape not only Perplexity’s future but the evolving rules by which generative AI interacts with journalistic and proprietary content. [7][2][1]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 6
- [1] (OpenTools) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6
- [7] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6
- [6] (Reuters Oct report / WSJ reporting) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5
- [4] (Reuters) – Paragraph 3
- [3] (AP) – Paragraph 4
- [5] (AP) – Paragraph 4
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 or recycled content were identified. The inclusion of updated data and recent events justifies a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes were identified in the provided text. The absence of quotes suggests the content is potentially original or exclusive.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from reputable sources, including Reuters and The Guardian, which enhances its credibility.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and consistent with recent legal actions involving Perplexity AI. The language and tone are appropriate for the topic and region, and the structure is focused on the main issue without excessive or off-topic details.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is fresh, original, and sourced from reputable outlets, with no significant credibility risks identified.
