Perplexity faces new copyright lawsuits in Japan

La Tension between media and technology has risen again with the legal offensive against Perplexity in Japan. Two of the largest publishing groups in the country, Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun, have filed a joint lawsuit in Tokyo for alleged copyright infringement.

The legal action claims a cease order, deletion of stored content and a compensation of 2,2 billion yen for each companyThe newspapers maintain that the service of Perplexity copied and stored protected material on its own servers y Overlook technical measures designed to prevent it.

What exactly is being reported?

Nikkei, owner of the Financial Times, and Asahi claim that Perplexity's conversational search engine —which answers queries citing sources and relying on models from OpenAI and Anthropic— reproduced and served text from his articles without permissionThey claim the practice has been going on since at least June 2024 and that the system deliberately ignored the robots.txt file.

In addition, the plaintiffs indicate that some responses attributed to their headers incorrect information, with the resulting reputational damage to newspapers whose credibility is essential. They also request that delete any stored copies of its articles and prevent their future reuse.

In the joint statement, both groups describe the conduct as a form of free and continued use journalistic work, carried out with a great investment of time and resources. They insist that, without effective control, the balance of the information ecosystem is disrupted.

The legal framework and global scope

Tokyo lawyers view these lawsuits as test cases. Specialist Kensaku Fukui recalls that Copyright law in Japan may be relatively lenient with AI training on existing works, but sets clear limits when it comes to full reproduction, public transmission or unauthorized adaptation.

The editors also argue that the facts could violate the Law on the Prevention of Unfair Competition in Japan. In parallel, courts in the United States and Europe have become another legal front on DMCA: A judge in New York rejected Perplexity's jurisdictional avoidance of News Corp's (owner of Wall Street Journal y New York Post), and Yomiuri had already opened fire in Japan weeks earlier.

Outside Japan, other organizations have taken similar steps. Dow Jones and the New York Post Perplexity is accused of divert readers and advertising business by responding with journalistic content within their platform instead of referring to the original websites.

What Perplexity says and does

The San Francisco-based company did not immediately respond to the new lawsuit, although in the Yomiuri case it spoke of a misunderstanding in JapanPrevious inquiries about alleged access despite robots.txt sparked another controversy: Perplexity argued that if the recovery is triggered by a user request, it may be justified.

In parallel, the search engine has accelerated agreements with publishers. It has announced revenue-sharing formulas with Time, Fortune and Der Spiegel, and a plan called Comet Plus that compensates media based on human views, quotes in replies and agent shares.Its user base exceeds 30 million—mostly in the US—and its main revenue comes from subscriptions.

The company, whose most recent valuation was around 18.000 million, argues that these avenues reflect a shift in the way we consume information—from browsing, requesting pre-generated answers, or using agents—and that publishers should be compensated accordingly.

What the media asks for and why

In addition to compensation, Nikkei and Asahi are requesting a immediate inhibition to prevent further copies and the deletion of articles already stored in Perplexity's systems. In their argument, they cite the rights of reproduction, public communication, and adaptation that have allegedly been violated, and highlight the damage caused by responses containing errors attributable to their brands.

These actions are joined by other movements: the BBC sent a cease and desist to stop using its content in training and service, and media such as New York Times and Condé Nast have issued similar requests. The industry points to the same problem: Unlicensed use drains audiences and leaves information work without economic return..

What is at stake for the sector

The rulings emanating from Tokyo, New York or Brussels can set the Red line between legitimate uses of AI and unauthorized exploitation of journalistic works. If injunctions and damages are successful, pressure to sign licenses and standardize compensation models between AI platforms and publishers will accelerate.

On the other hand, Perplexity tries to prove that its product adds value by citing sources, closing deals and paying for referrals The challenge will be to demonstrate that these formulas offset the impact that publishers claim and that they respect legal restrictions on content reproduction and distribution.

The pulse for the Copyright in the Age of AI Thus, it enters a decisive phase: Japan contributes high-profile cases, led by Nikkei and Asahi; the United States adds relevant procedural decisions; and Perplexity attempts to protect itself with licenses and revenue sharing, while the courts determine the limits of legitimate use of journalistic content in generative search engines.