CNN Unleashes Legal Firestorm on Perplexity: Is AI Stealing Journalism?

CNN isn't pulling punches. The media giant has unleashed a legal salvo against Perplexity, the AI startup, alleging its tools are brazenly pilfering journalistic output. A lawsuit, filed in a New York court this past Thursday, claims Perplexity doesn't just copy; it lifts content “verbatim,” even from behind CNN’s paywall.

Perplexity, known for its AI “answer” engine and Comet browser, stands accused of a deliberate disregard for basic publishing ethics. CNN’s legal team asserts the startup actively ignored its attempts to block unidentified crawlers. These digital marauders, the lawsuit argues, were scraping content without so much as a by-your-leave.

“Human beings report, research, write, edit, and create the content that Perplexity takes without permission or compensation,” the lawsuit declares. It’s a direct challenge to the AI industry’s often-fuzzy ethics regarding source material.

Consider one particularly galling instance: CNN claims Perplexity’s AI search tool regurgitated “substantial” verbatim chunks of its article, “What’s next for Minneapolis? A shaky promise, mounting tensions and the fight for control.” All it took was prompting the AI with the article’s title. An instant echo chamber.

This isn't an isolated skirmish. CNN joins an ever-growing queue of content creators taking Perplexity to court over copyright infringement. The New York Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and News Corp — parent company of The Wall Street Journal — are already in the fray. Amazon and Reddit are also pursuing their own claims against the AI firm. It's a crowded legal docket for the AI upstart.

The current legal dust-up, perhaps inevitably, follows a failed attempt at collaboration. As the lawsuit details, a deal to license CNN’s content for Perplexity’s Comet Plus subscription crumbled in October 2025. The sticking point? Perplexity's proposed limits on using CNN content in its AI-generated answers. Not good enough, said CNN. The agreement was scrapped a month later. A letter followed, demanding Perplexity cease using its content and trademarks without permission. Perplexity, CNN alleges, offered no reply.

“You can’t copyright facts.”

CNN now seeks hefty damages and a permanent injunction against Perplexity's alleged unlawful behavior. When pressed for comment, Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer offered a succinct, and perhaps telling, defense: “You can’t copyright facts.” The statement hangs in the air, a gauntlet thrown. But in an age where algorithms craft narratives from others' work, discerning fact from creative expression — and who truly owns it — is fast becoming the defining legal battle of our time. The courts, it seems, will have the final say on that.