Chicago Tribune Company, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-10094 (S.D.N.Y.)

Summary

The Chicago Tribune sued Perplexity AI in the Southern District of New York on December 4, 2025. The complaint alleges that Perplexity copied Tribune content, some of it protected by paywalls and terms of use, to build inputs for and generate outputs from its generative-AI answer engine, and asserts direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement plus Lanham Act claims for false designation of origin, trademark dilution and trademark infringement. The case is in discovery and is being handled alongside The New York Times Co. v. Perplexity AI. The claims are allegations.

Key dates

1. December 4, 2025Filed
2. October 16, 2026Checked against sources
3. October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: January 15, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

1. False Designation of Origin and Dilution of the Chicago Tribune's Trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1125)

   Supports: Lanham Act claims

   Complaint, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Dkt. 1 (copy of the court filing) ChatGPT Is Eating the World (hosting the filed complaint) Primary source

2. The complaint filed on behalf of the Chicago Tribune on December 4 makes similar allegations, citing "massive copyright infringement" as well as violation of "the Chicago Tribune's trademark under the Lanham Act."

   Supports: Filing date and claims

   Rothwell Figg Reaches Six AI Copyright Suits with New Filings Against Perplexity AI Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck (plaintiff's counsel) Reporting or analysis

3. Plaintiffs Chicago Tribune Company, LLC ("Chicago Tribune") and The New York Times Company ("The Times"), Wirecutter, Inc. ("Wirecutter"), and The Athletic Media Company ("The Athletic") and Defendant Perplexity AI, Inc.

   Supports: Case active in discovery in October 2026; coordinated with NYT v. Perplexity

   [Proposed] Order re: Stipulated Document Production Protocol, Dkt. 61, No. 25-cv-10094-LAP (S.D.N.Y.) U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via RECAP) Primary source