Perplexity AI Hit with Tokyo Lawsuit for Allegedly Copying Nikkei and Asahi Content

AI search startup Perplexity faces legal heat in Japan—major publishers Nikkei and Asahi just filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Tokyo District Court.

The Core Allegation

Plaintiffs claim Perplexity's AI models scraped and reproduced proprietary news content without permission or compensation. No specific damages amount disclosed yet—but given the publishers' stature, this won't be cheap.

Why It Matters

Japan's strict copyright laws meet aggressive AI training practices. Outcome could set precedent for how AI firms operate in jurisdiction-heavy markets. Regulatory scrutiny rising faster than a memecoin pump.

Bigger Picture

Global publishers increasingly push back against uncompensated content use by AI companies. Perplexity now joins other tech giants in the copyright crosshairs. Because nothing sparks innovation like a lawsuit—just ask the finance bros still waiting for that blockchain revolution.

TLDRs;

• Nikkei and Asahi sue Perplexity in Tokyo, seeking US$29M for alleged copyright infringement and unauthorized article storage.
• Publishers accuse Perplexity of bypassing protections and misrepresenting their reporting, raising concerns about credibility and trust.
• Perplexity faces similar lawsuits in the U.S., including from Dow Jones, and disputes claims of data scraping and misuse.
• The AI firm launches a $42.5M revenue-sharing program for publishers, offering 80% of subscription revenue amid legal pressure.

Two of Japan’s most influential media groups, Nikkei Inc. and The Asahi Shimbun Company, have filed a joint lawsuit against AI search engine Perplexity, accusing the U.S.-based startup of unauthorized use of their journalism.

The complaint, filed in Tokyo District Court, seeks 2.2 billion yen (about US$14.7 million) in damages per publisher, bringing the total claim to nearly US$29 million.

According to the lawsuit, Perplexity allegedly copied and stored articles from the publishers without permission, bypassing technical barriers designed to prevent scraping and unauthorized reproduction. Both Nikkei and Asahi are also demanding the deletion of all archived content tied to their reporting.

Allegations of Inaccuracy and Credibility Harm

Beyond copyright infringement, the plaintiffs accuse Perplexity of presenting inaccurate summaries that appeared to cite their work. They argue this practice not only distorts their reporting but also risks undermining their credibility with readers. For legacy outlets like Nikkei and Asahi, whose reputations rest on accuracy, the stakes extend beyond financial compensation to journalistic trust.

Perplexity has not publicly commented on the Tokyo lawsuit but has previously denied similar allegations in the United States, arguing that its AI assistant pulls content in response to user queries rather than mass-storing publisher data.

Global Legal Pressure Mounts on AI Firms

This case is not isolated. Perplexity is already facing lawsuits in the U.S. from Dow Jones and the New York Post, with accusations ranging from copyright infringement to data misuse.

Additionally, internet infrastructure giant Cloudflare accused Perplexity of circumventing site protections to access restricted content, a claim the company disputes.

The legal challenges underscore the broader reckoning between AI firms and the media industry. Globally, at least 48 copyright cases involving AI are active, with major entertainment companies such as Disney and Universal also filing new suits in 2025. Courts have issued mixed rulings, with some favoring AI companies under “fair use” but leaving open claims about unauthorized access to pirated or restricted data.

Revenue-Sharing

Amid mounting pressure, Perplexity announced a US$42.5 million revenue-sharing program for publishers earlier this month. The initiative promises media outlets an 80% cut of subscription revenue from its Comet Plus service, a US$5 monthly plan tied to its Comet AI browser. Publishers WOULD earn money when their content powers AI-generated answers or drives traffic from Comet searches.

The MOVE is widely seen as a strategic pivot to mitigate lawsuits and align incentives with content creators. Unlike traditional flat licensing fees offered by rivals like OpenAI and Google, Perplexity’s performance-based model could deliver recurring revenue, especially if AI search adoption expands.

Still, the timing of the revenue-sharing rollout, just as lawsuits intensify, suggests that Perplexity is racing to balance innovation with compliance. Whether Japanese publishers will embrace this model remains uncertain, especially as they press their case in court.