According to TechCrunch, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against AI search startup Perplexity on Friday for copyright infringement, marking its second major suit against an AI company. The suit claims Perplexity’s products, which use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to answer queries, often provide verbatim or summarized reproductions of Times content without permission, even from behind its paywall. This follows a cease and desist letter sent over a year ago and comes just days after the Chicago Tribune filed a similar suit. The Times also alleges Perplexity’s engine has hallucinated information and falsely attributed it to the outlet. In response to industry pressure, Perplexity had launched a Publishers’ Program last year and a $5 monthly Comet Plus plan in August, allocating 80% of that fee to participating publishers like Gannett and TIME. A Times spokesperson stated they object to the “unlicensed use” of their content to develop Perplexity’s products.
It’s All About Leverage
Here’s the thing: this lawsuit isn’t really a surprise. It’s a calculated move. The article makes it clear this is part of a “years-long strategy” where publishers, knowing they can’t stop AI, use lawsuits as leverage in negotiations. They want formal licenses and compensation. Look at the timing—the suit was filed even as the Times and others are actively negotiating deals with AI firms. That’s not a coincidence; it’s a pressure tactic. The goal is to force companies like Perplexity to the table and establish a precedent that content has value and needs to be paid for. Basically, they’re using the legal system to create a new revenue stream they feel entitled to.
Perplexity’s Rocky Road
But Perplexity isn’t some naive newcomer. They saw this coming. They launched that Publishers’ Program and the Comet Plus subscription specifically to try and address these compensation demands. They even struck a licensing deal with Getty Images. So why is the Times suing them now? Probably because those efforts weren’t enough, or didn’t include the Times. The legal pressure on Perplexity is mounting fast. They’re facing claims from News Corp, Encyclopedia Britannica, Nikkei, and others. Wired and Forbes have publicly accused them of plagiarism and unethical crawling. And internet infrastructure provider Cloudflare confirmed Perplexity was scraping sites that explicitly said not to. That’s a bad look. This isn’t one angry publisher; it’s a pattern.
The Bigger Fair Use Fight
This case is a smaller piece of a massive, existential battle over “fair use.” The Times is already suing OpenAI and Microsoft, who argue training on public data is fair use. That case is huge. But a ruling in a different case—against Anthropic—might be more relevant here. In that one, the court basically said using lawfully acquired books might be okay, but using pirated books definitely isn’t. That’s a crucial distinction for Perplexity. If their RAG system is crawling paywalled content or sites that block scrapers, are those “pirated” sources? The Times certainly argues yes. This lawsuit could test whether simply accessing and summarizing web content, especially gated content, crosses the line from fair use to infringement.
A Two-Faced Strategy?
And let’s be clear: The New York Times is playing both sides. They’re suing Perplexity and OpenAI, but they also signed a multiyear licensing deal with Amazon for AI training. Other publishers are doing the same—Axel Springer, The Atlantic, and Vox Media have deals with OpenAI. So the message is simple: you can use our content if you pay us. It’s a purely economic argument wrapped in legal language. The Times wants to be compensated, and they’ll use the courts to make that happen if voluntary deals don’t materialize. For Perplexity, a startup, this lawsuit is a massive threat. Can they afford a settlement like Anthropic’s $1.5 billion deal? Or a prolonged legal fight? Probably not. That might be exactly what the Times is counting on.
