Publishers Sue Perplexity AI—But Why Not Google?

Publishers Sue Perplexity AI—But Why Not Google?

Are Traditional Media Finally Fighting Back Against AI?

The New York Times filed a federal lawsuit against Perplexity AI on December 5, 2025, accusing the startup of copyright infringement by copying millions of articles to train chatbots and generate responses. The Chicago Tribune filed similar claims one day earlier, both in New York federal court.

The suits allege Perplexity's technology extracts substantial content—sometimes entire articles—reformulating them into responses that compete directly with the newspapers' offerings. The Tribune specifically targets Perplexity's Retrieval Augmented Generation systems and its Comet browser, which allegedly bypasses paywalls to deliver detailed summaries. Tribune executive editor Mitch Pugh called it "stealing, plain and simple."

What Makes Perplexity Different From Google?

Both publishers have spent 18 months demanding Perplexity cease unauthorized use, with cease-and-desist notices in October 2024. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and permanent injunctions. This marks the Times' second major AI action after suing OpenAI in 2023, and follows Tribune Publishing's earlier suits against OpenAI and Microsoft.

Why Target Small Players While Feeding the Giants?

Yet here's the uncomfortable question: Where's the lawsuit against Google?

For over a decade, these same publishers have fed their content into Google's ecosystem—accepting its indexing, rich snippets, and above-the-fold answer boxes that keep users on Google's page. That arrangement gets characterized as "the open web" and "distribution." Now with the release of Google AI Mode and AI Answers, the alleged "stealing" is no different from what Perplexity does. But when Perplexity reformulates articles, suddenly it's civilization-ending theft.

The selective outrage reveals a pattern. Publishers pursue legal action against companies that lack massive advertising networks, don't send millions of daily referral clicks, and can't devastate their search visibility in retaliation. Meanwhile, the platforms that actually dominate discovery and distribution remain conspicuously absent from the defendant's chair.

Is This Principle or Pragmatism?

If copyright protection were the genuine principle, we'd expect coordinated pressure on the biggest platforms built on publisher content. Instead, lawsuits target newer, smaller AI search players while carefully avoiding the companies that control their traffic pipeline.

The publishers frame their actions as defending journalism and standing up to tech overreach. But the messaging reveals uncomfortable truths. They want compensation from whoever is weakest first, flexing on easier targets because taking on the real giants would hurt too much. The careful calculation behind who gets sued and who doesn't exposes dependence masquerading as principle.

This isn't thoughtful copyright reform. It's legacy media making examples of those vulnerable enough to sue without consequences. The despicable part isn't publishers seeking fair compensation—it's the hypocrisy of selective enforcement that reveals they can't realistically challenge the platforms they actually depend on, so they've chosen to swing hard at the startup across the street instead.

NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. NOT THE OPINIONS OF CTOL.DIGITAL