Perplexity is an “answer engine” company: you ask a question, and it searches the web and writes up the answer for you. That approach helped it grow fast. It also got it sued, starting in 2024, by media companies in the US, Japan, and Brazil, and by Amazon over its AI agent.
These suits are about different things. Publishers say it “took our content.” Amazon says it “broke into our system.” Below, we cover each one and mark clearly who actually sued and who did not. To learn about the company first, start with What kind of company is Perplexity.
The Publishers’ Copyright War: Who Sued and Who Did Not
The list as of October 2026:
| Party | Legal action | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Dow Jones and NYP Holdings (publishers of The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post) | Sued in New York federal court in 2024 | In August 2025 the court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss and the case entered discovery; pretrial conference set for December 14, 2026 |
| Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster | Sued in September 2025 | In discovery |
| Sued in October 2025, saying Perplexity got around its protections to scrape data (under the DMCA, not ordinary copyright) | In July 2026 the court denied most of Perplexity’s motion to dismiss | |
| The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune | Each sued in December 2025 | Perplexity only asked the court to dismiss the claims about generated content; it did not challenge the core claim about scraping and copying; no ruling yet |
| CNN | Sued in May 2026 | No ruling yet |
| Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo) | Sued in August 2025, seeking about 2.168 billion yen | First hearing in May 2026; Perplexity asked for dismissal |
| Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun (Tokyo) | Sued jointly in August 2025, each seeking 2.2 billion yen | First hearing in May 2026; Perplexity asked for dismissal |
| Folha de S.Paulo (Brazil) | Sued in August 2026 | No ruling yet |
| Condé Nast (parent of Wired and Vogue) | Only sent a cease-and-desist letter | Has not sued |
| Getty Images (stock photos) | Did not sue | Signed a content licensing deal in October 2025 instead |
What These Suits Allege: “AI Is Taking the Content Away”
The publishers all argue the same thing: Perplexity scraped and copied reporting they paid to produce, put it into its own answers, and left readers no reason to visit the original site.
This is called “zero-click.” Before, when you found an article through search, you clicked through to the news site, and the site earned ad money from that visit. An answer engine gives you the key points directly, so the outlet loses the visitor and the revenue.
Perplexity’s position is that summarizing public information with source links is fair use. Courts have not ruled on this core dispute yet, so these cases will set a precedent for how far AI can go in using other people’s content. Further reading: What is an answer engine.
The Amazon Case: Can an AI Log Into Someone Else’s System for You
Perplexity’s Comet browser has an agent feature that can log into a user’s Amazon account and compare prices and place orders automatically. Amazon says this is unauthorized access to its systems and sued.
In March 2026, a district court in California issued an injunction that barred the Comet agent from Amazon’s account shopping area. On August 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that injunction. Its reasoning: on the facts of this case, the user, not Perplexity, was the one “accessing” Amazon; the AI assistant “is a tool, not a person.” The court also said plainly that the ruling “does not create a new legal regime governing AI agents.”
So Perplexity won the injunction round, and the case went back to the district court. The core question is still open: when you tell an AI “go buy this on Amazon for me,” is it your tool, or an intruder the platform never allowed? The answer will affect every AI agent that wants to book flights, make appointments, or shop for you. Further reading: What is Comet.
Fights Outside the Courtroom: The Crawler Dispute and Revenue Sharing
In 2025, the internet infrastructure company Cloudflare accused Perplexity of using “stealth crawlers” that hid their identity to get around websites’ “do not crawl” settings, and blocked it with technical measures. Perplexity denied this and said Cloudflare had blamed it for traffic from a third-party service.
Perplexity has also offered an olive branch: its “Comet Plus” program gives partner publishers eighty percent of subscription revenue, which amounts to paying for a license. Outlets that could not reach a deal ended up in court.
What Remains Undecided
- No ruling on the core dispute: as of October 2026, no publisher case has ruled on whether AI scraping counts as infringement.
- The Amazon case is back in district court: the injunction is gone, but the case itself has not been decided.
- No damages or settlements: no case has a confirmed damages figure or settlement.
This piece turns public court progress into a plain-language explainer. It is not legal advice. Case statuses are as of October 2026.
Penchan’s summary
Perplexity sits between two forces. Content owners upstream sue it for “taking my stuff,” and platforms downstream sue it for “breaking into my territory.” This is the most awkward spot for a middle-layer company: it connects content and services, and offends both ends at once.
These rulings will matter beyond Perplexity. The copyright cases will set how far answer engines can go with other people’s content, and the Amazon case will decide whether AI agents can log into services and do things for you.