Source: IPWatchdog

IPWatchdog provides a technical legal analysis of The New York Times' lawsuit against Perplexity AI, contextualizing it within the broader wave of litigation against generative AI companies. The article distinguishes this case by focusing on Perplexity's use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), arguing that unlike standard LLM training, RAG retrieves and displays live content in a way that directly substitutes for the original source. This strengthens the Times' argument against a "fair use" defense.

The piece also explores the concept of "unjust enrichment" and "common law misappropriation," noting that the Times is attacking the very core of Perplexity's business model—offering answers that negate the need to click through to the publisher. IPWatchdog suggests that the outcome of this case could force a bifurcation in the industry, where AI search engines effectively become licensed syndicators of news rather than neutral indexing tools.