New York Times sues Perplexity AI over copyright infringement in landmark case

The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, alleging the startup copied and misused its journalism to power a generative answer engine, sparking a broader debate over AI’s use of proprietary news content.

According to the original report, The New York Times filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday, accusing Perplexity AI of copying, distributing and displaying millions of its articles without permission to power the startup’s generative “answer engine.” The complaint, the paper says, contends Perplexity’s responses sometimes reproduce Times material verbatim and that the product functions as a commercial substitute for the newspaper’s journalism. ^[1][2][4]

The Times argues the conduct violates the US Copyright Act by appropriating its expressive, original journalism , from news and opinion to culture, business and lifestyle coverage , and that the startup persisted despite repeated objections. “Perplexity has engaged in illegal conduct that threatens this legacy and impedes the free press’s ability to continue playing its role in supporting an informed citizenry and a healthy democracy,” the complaint states. ^[1][5]

Perplexity promotes itself as an alternative to traditional search, pitching an “intelligent research assistant” that streamlines information gathering and reduces the need to click through to full reporting. The Times and several other publishers say that pitch masks the reality that Perplexity’s answers rely on proprietary reporting and, at times, produce fabricated or falsely attributed material , so-called “hallucinations” , presented alongside the paper’s trademarks. The complaint seeks damages and an injunction to stop the alleged copying and misuse. ^[1][2][3]

The dispute joins a wave of litigation between news organisations and AI firms over how proprietary content is used to build and power generative systems. Publishers including the Chicago Tribune, Dow Jones and Encyclopaedia Britannica have separately challenged Perplexity’s practices; Reuters and other outlets note the cases reflect broader tensions over whether indexing publicly available pages is lawful when the resulting product reproduces or substitutes for paid journalism. ^[1][2][3][5]

Perplexity has previously articulated a contrasting position, saying it indexes publicly available web pages rather than scraping to train foundation models, and the company has run programmes aimed at sharing revenue with publishers. Industry observers say the lawsuits will test the boundary between lawful indexing and the unauthorised commercial exploitation of copyrighted news content, and could shape how generative AI products cite, compensate or licence source material. ^[2][5]

Legal outcomes will turn on factual demonstrations of how Perplexity sources, stores and serves content, and whether its answers constitute permissible transformation or unlawful substitution. According to the original report, the Times alleges both large-scale copying and instances where Perplexity displayed fabricated text attributed to the newspaper , allegations that, if proved, strengthen the paper’s claims for injunctive relief. ^[1][2][3]

The case is likely to be watched closely by news organisations, AI companies and courts for precedent on content use, attribution and economic harm. Industry data shows publishers are increasingly pursuing litigation as one path to protect revenue streams and compel licensing arrangements; the Times says this action is part of that broader effort to hold AI firms accountable for unlicensed use of journalism. ^[5][2]

📌 Reference Map:

##Reference Map:

• ^[1] (JURIST) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6
• ^[2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
• ^[3] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6
• ^[4] (TheWrap) – Paragraph 1
• ^[5] (TechCrunch) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
• ^[6] (Yahoo) – Paragraph 1

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 fresh, with the earliest known publication date being December 5, 2025. Multiple reputable outlets, including Reuters ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-york-times-sues-perplexity-ai-infringing-copyright-works-2025-12-05/?utm_source=openai)), The Guardian ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/05/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit?utm_source=openai)), and TechCrunch ([techcrunch.com](https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/05/the-new-york-times-is-suing-perplexity-for-copyright-infringement/?utm_source=openai)), have reported on this event, confirming its recent emergence.

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
Direct quotes from The New York Times spokesperson Graham James and Perplexity’s head of communications Jesse Dwyer are consistent across multiple sources, indicating originality. For instance, James’s statement, “We will continue to work to hold companies accountable that refuse to recognize the value of our work,” is reported by TheWrap ([thewrap.com](https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit/?utm_source=openai)).

Source reliability

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative originates from reputable organisations, including Reuters, The Guardian, and TechCrunch, all known for their journalistic integrity and thorough reporting. These outlets have consistently provided accurate and timely information on this topic.

Plausability check

Score:
10

Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and corroborated by multiple reputable sources. The New York Times has a history of protecting its intellectual property, and the allegations against Perplexity AI align with ongoing industry concerns about AI companies using copyrighted content without permission.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is fresh, with consistent and original quotes from reliable sources. The claims are plausible and corroborated by multiple reputable outlets, indicating a high level of credibility.