Perplexity's $42.5 Million Peace Offering Won't Stop the Lawsuit Avalanche

Perplexity's timing couldn't be worse—or more revealing. Just as the AI search startup announced a $42.5 million revenue-sharing pool for publishers, two of Japan's most powerful media companies filed a $30 million lawsuit against them for copyright infringement. The simultaneous announcements crystallize the central paradox of AI-powered search: you can't buy your way out of stealing content, no matter how generous the compensation.

The startup's new Comet Plus subscription model promises publishers 80% of a $5 monthly fee, creating what CEO Aravind Srinivas calls "the right solution" for the AI age. Publishers including Fortune, TIME, and Der Spiegel are already participating in the program, which compensates media outlets when their content is used to answer user queries through direct visits, search citations, and AI agent actions.

But Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun aren't buying it. Their joint lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Tokyo District Court, seeks ¥2.2 billion ($15 million) each in damages and an injunction barring Perplexity from reproducing their articles. The timing suggests publishers view revenue-sharing as admission of guilt rather than genuine partnership.

The Math Problem Perplexity Can't Solve

The fundamental economics of Perplexity's revenue-sharing model expose why publishers remain skeptical. At $5 monthly for Comet Plus, with publishers receiving 80%, that's $4 per subscriber to be distributed across all participating outlets based on usage metrics. Most newspapers charge $20-30 monthly for full access to their content.

Perplexity's $42.5 million pool sounds substantial until you consider the scale of content being processed. The Yomiuri Shimbun's earlier lawsuit revealed that Perplexity accessed 119,467 articles on their site between February and June of this year, according to server logs. Extrapolating across multiple major publishers, the revenue per article approaches pennies.

The model fundamentally misunderstands publisher economics. Publishers in its program include Blavity, Der Spiegel, Fortune, Gannett, The Independent and Time, but notable absences include The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and now the major Japanese publishers. The outlets willing to accept minimal compensation may not represent the premium content Perplexity most depends on.

Jessica Chan, Perplexity's head of publisher partnerships, told Digiday that publishers could stand to make "millions" from the program, but declined to provide specifics about participation or actual payouts. Without transparency on usage metrics or revenue distribution, publishers are essentially signing blank checks.

Japan's Copyright Law Creates New Vulnerabilities

The Japanese lawsuits introduce legal complexities that revenue-sharing can't address. Japanese copyright law doesn't stop AI companies from freely training their models on copyrighted material, but it draws the line at wholly reproducing that content and interfering with the publishers' right of distribution.

The startup's AI search results ignored coding that indicated content was off-limits and also inserted errors that were attributed to the news organizations, damaging the papers' reputations, according to the lawsuit. This creates liability beyond simple copyright infringement—Perplexity faces accusations of damaging publisher credibility through inaccurate attribution.

The legal strategy reveals sophisticated understanding of AI vulnerabilities. Rather than challenging the training process, publishers are targeting the reproduction and distribution mechanisms that generate user-facing content. This approach could prove more successful than broader challenges to AI training practices.

Perplexity, which fetched a $18 billion value at its last fundraising, reproduced and saved content from the Nikkei and the Asahi since at least June last year, establishing a clear timeline for damages calculations. The accumulated evidence suggests systematic content appropriation rather than isolated incidents.

The Cease-and-Desist Letters Keep Coming

Revenue-sharing hasn't stemmed the tide of legal challenges. The BBC, Forbes, Wired, News Corp's Dow Jones, and The New York Post have all raised legal or commercial objections to Perplexity's use of their content. Last week, a U.S. federal court declined to dismiss News Corp's lawsuit, reinforcing the legal uncertainty surrounding AI's use of copyrighted material.

The mounting legal pressure suggests publishers view current AI practices as fundamentally illegitimate rather than simply undercompensated. Cease-and-desist letters from major outlets indicate willingness to forgo potential revenue-sharing benefits to maintain control over content distribution.

Perplexity's response to earlier criticism reveals the company's defensive posture. After News Corp's lawsuit, the company criticized the "adversarial posture" of media outlets, arguing they "prefer to live in a world where publicly reported facts are owned by corporations." This messaging positions publishers as obstructionist rather than acknowledging legitimate copyright concerns.

The company has also faced technical challenges to its practices. A 2024 report in Wired suggested that Perplexity may have circumvented website protections using undisclosed IP addresses. Similar disputes have arisen with Cloudflare, which discovered that Perplexity was bypassing no-crawling requests by disguising its traffic.

Why Revenue-Sharing Won't Work

The structural problems with Perplexity's approach go beyond compensation amounts. AI search engines fundamentally change user behavior in ways that revenue-sharing can't address. When users get comprehensive answers from Perplexity without clicking through to source articles, publishers lose not just traffic but the opportunity to build reader relationships.

Unlike ChatGPT or Anthropic's Claude, Perplexity's tool provides up-to-date answers that often include links to source materials, allowing users to verify information. And unlike a classic search engine, Perplexity provides ready-made answers on its webpage, making it unnecessary for users to click through to the source website.

This creates what economists call a substitution effect—Perplexity's service replaces rather than complements publisher content. Revenue-sharing may compensate for lost traffic but can't restore the direct relationship between publishers and their audiences.

The timing of revenue-sharing announcements alongside lawsuit filings suggests Perplexity recognizes the weakness of its legal position. Rather than defending current practices, the company is essentially offering to pay for continued access to content it previously took without permission.

The Broader AI Accountability Question

Perplexity's legal troubles reflect a broader reckoning for AI companies built on content they don't own. The startup's $18 billion valuation depends on continued access to high-quality publisher content, but legal challenges threaten that foundation.

The Japanese lawsuits are particularly significant because they target not just copyright infringement but also competitive harm and credibility damage. This multi-pronged approach could establish precedents that apply to other AI companies relying on publisher content.

The outcome will determine whether AI companies can essentially force publishers into revenue-sharing arrangements by first appropriating content without permission, then offering compensation under legal pressure. If successful, this approach could become a template for other AI companies facing similar challenges.

For publishers, the stakes extend beyond immediate compensation to questions of long-term industry viability. If AI companies can extract value from publisher content while providing minimal compensation, the economic foundation of journalism faces fundamental threat.

Perplexity's revenue-sharing program represents a significant shift in AI company strategy—from denying harm to offering compensation. But the continued stream of lawsuits suggests publishers want control, not just money. The $42.5 million peace offering may have come too late to prevent a legal reckoning that could reshape the entire AI industry.

Ready to navigate the AI content landscape without the legal landmines? Our growth experts at Winsome Marketing help you build content strategies that leverage AI capabilities while respecting intellectual property rights and avoiding costly litigation.