AWS Launches New Nova AI Models And a Service That Gives Customers More Control

Perplexity AI Sued by Chicago Tribune Over Copyright Concerns

The Chicago Tribune has taken legal action against AI search engine Perplexity, filing a lawsuit this Thursday in a federal court in New York. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, marking another major clash between traditional media and emerging AI technologies. The Tribune claims that Perplexity is using its content without permission, raising questions about the legal boundaries of AI-driven content use.

Credit: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg / Getty Images

The case has captured attention because it touches on both content ownership and the evolving role of AI in journalism. As AI tools like Perplexity gain traction for summarizing news articles, publishers are increasingly scrutinizing how these systems source and display their content.

Allegations of Verbatim Content Use

According to the lawsuit, the Tribune reached out to Perplexity in mid-October to clarify whether the AI engine used its articles for training. Perplexity reportedly denied training its models with Tribune content, stating it might use “non-verbatim factual summaries.” However, the Tribune’s lawyers argue the platform reproduces their content verbatim, raising red flags about copyright violations.

The legal claim suggests that what Perplexity presents as summarized or factual content may actually mirror the original articles too closely. This has sparked debate in the tech and legal communities over how AI systems interpret and relay copyrighted material.

The Role of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

A central point in the lawsuit is Perplexity’s use of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). RAG is designed to improve AI accuracy by restricting the model to verified sources. The Tribune alleges that Perplexity’s RAG system relies on the newspaper’s content without permission, effectively scraping copyrighted material.

By integrating RAG, AI engines promise more reliable summaries and fewer hallucinations. But according to the Tribune, this technology may be inadvertently—or deliberately—breaching copyright protections, setting up a potential precedent for future AI-related lawsuits.

Paywall Concerns With Perplexity’s Comet Browser

The complaint also highlights Perplexity’s Comet browser, which allegedly bypasses the Tribune’s paywall to deliver detailed article summaries. Publishers argue that such actions undercut subscription revenue and violate intellectual property rights.

Paywall circumvention adds another layer of complexity to the case. Beyond copyright infringement, the Tribune is raising questions about the financial implications of AI tools that access and redistribute premium content without consent.

Context: Broader Legal Battles Against AI Companies

This lawsuit is part of a larger pattern of media companies challenging AI platforms over content use. The Tribune is among 17 news outlets from MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing that have sued OpenAI and Microsoft over AI training material. Eight filed in April, with another nine joining in November, and these cases are still ongoing.

These legal battles reflect growing tensions between the rapid advancement of AI and the rights of content creators. Courts are now faced with deciding how copyright law applies to AI-generated outputs, especially when the technology leverages existing publications.

AI and Copyright: A Legal Grey Area

The Perplexity case raises broader questions about the legal responsibilities of AI developers. While many lawsuits target the use of copyrighted work in model training, the Tribune’s complaint also challenges the AI’s use in RAG systems. This distinction could become significant in determining liability.

Experts note that current copyright laws were not designed with AI in mind. Cases like this may define new legal frameworks, potentially influencing how AI platforms summarize, access, and deliver content in the future.

Implications for AI Search Engines

If the court sides with the Tribune, AI search engines could face stricter limits on using protected content. Developers may need to implement more robust licensing agreements or develop alternative methods to access factual data without violating copyright.

For now, AI platforms like Perplexity continue operating, but the legal uncertainty underscores the importance of transparency and compliance in AI content sourcing.

Industry Reactions and Expert Opinions

Industry observers are closely monitoring the case. Legal analysts suggest the lawsuit could set a precedent for how AI companies handle copyrighted material in both training models and output generation.

Meanwhile, publishers see the case as a necessary step to protect their revenue streams and ensure their intellectual property rights are respected. The outcome could influence how other media companies approach AI partnerships and licensing agreements.

Challenges for AI Developers

For AI developers, the Tribune lawsuit highlights the fine line between innovation and infringement. Tools like RAG are meant to reduce misinformation, but they may inadvertently rely on copyrighted content.

Developers are increasingly tasked with balancing ethical AI design, legal compliance, and user demand for accurate, on-demand content. Cases like this may encourage companies to adopt stricter content filters or explore alternative data sources.

What This Means for Readers and Subscribers

For consumers, the lawsuit may impact how AI-driven summaries of news articles are delivered. If courts rule in favor of the Tribune, access to full AI-generated summaries of paywalled content could be limited.

Subscribers may also see changes in AI platforms’ approach to content retrieval, ensuring publishers’ rights are safeguarded while maintaining convenient access to information.

A Defining Moment for AI and Media

The Perplexity lawsuit marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of AI technology and media law. With increasing reliance on AI for news summaries, the courts’ decision could influence the future of AI search engines and content monetization.

As the case progresses, both AI developers and media companies will likely be watching closely, anticipating legal rulings that could reshape how digital content is accessed, summarized, and shared.