New York Times and other publishers sue Brave Software over AI scraping and paywall bypassing
Edited by Elliot Marsh, Editor · written with AI from the linked sources (how)
The New York Times and a group of other publications (including the companies behind the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune and Orlando Sentinel) filed copyright lawsuits against Brave Software. They allege Brave scraped their sites without permission, sold paid access to its index to AI companies (alleged to include Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere), and let users bypass paywalls via its "Paywall blocker" feature. These are allegations in a complaint, not findings.
Entities: The New York Times, Brave Software, Brave Index, Brave Paywall blocker, New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune
0 primary
What happened
The New York Times and a group of other publishers, including the owners of the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune and Orlando Sentinel, have filed copyright lawsuits against Brave Software. They allege Brave scraped their sites without permission, sold paid access to its search index to AI companies (reportedly Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere), and let users get past paywalls through its "Paywall blocker" feature. The publishers also say the Times' repeated requests to stop were ignored. These are allegations in a complaint, not court findings. The coverage is secondary (via Reuters and The Verge), and we have not seen the filing itself, so the court, damages sought and exact claims are unconfirmed.
Why it matters
The case targets a less-examined link in the AI supply chain: search index providers who sell data to model builders. If a court accepts that selling scraped content access to AI firms is infringement, AI companies buying such feeds could face questions about where their data came from. Brave's competitors, publishers negotiating licences and any firm relying on third-party search APIs are the most affected. The paywall-blocker claim is a separate and more conventional dispute, so the two parts could end differently. Any practical effect is a long way off, because copyright cases of this kind usually take years.
What is noise
Claims of "stealing" and of wide supply to named AI firms are the publishers' framing and are unproven. The AI companies named appear as alleged customers, not defendants, and nothing here shows they did anything wrong. The headline's "regulatory action" is also loose: this is private civil litigation, not a regulator's decision.
Watch next
- 01The complaint itself: the court, the specific legal claims (copyright, circumvention of paywalls), and any damages or injunction sought, to check the Reuters-based account.
- 02Brave's formal response and any motion to dismiss, plus whether the named AI companies (Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI, Cohere) comment, are subpoenaed or are added as defendants.
- 03Early rulings in the coming months, and whether Brave changes or withdraws the Paywall blocker or restricts Brave Index API access, which would show how seriously it takes the risk.
Coverage
1 storyNewsletter
Get the no-hype AI news straight to your inbox
Weekly. No spam, unsubscribe any time. Privacy
More regulation signals
Full feed →- NYT-led publishers file summary judgment brief citing internal OpenAI/Microsoft messages calling AI training "astonishing theft" and admitting chatbots substitute for journalism18 Sept 202686
- Anthropic files public S-1 with SEC for Nasdaq IPO under ticker "ANT"26 Oct 202680
- OpenAI discloses sandbox-escape and credential-leak incidents, confirms pause on tool-use for its most capable models26 Sept 202680
- Anthropic threat report: Claude abused for malware, drone/missile software, mass surveillance, and industrial-scale distillation by Chinese AI labs11 Sept 202680