Both lawsuits identify Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI, and Cohere as customers of Brave's API. The complaints claim that AI developers use the service to obtain information for model training, generate responses to user questions, or both.
The newspapers cite Brave's own promotional materials, which describe the API as supporting the development and operation of major language models. They also reference a company blog post that reportedly identified Anthropic's Claude 2 as a model trained using Brave's search technology.
A central dispute concerns how Brave collects the information that powers its search engine.
According to the publishers, Brave has not publicly identified the crawler responsible for building its index, preventing website operators from specifically restricting its access. The newspapers argue that this makes it difficult to control whether their reporting is collected and subsequently distributed through Brave's commercial products.
The lawsuits also challenge Brave's AI-powered search features, particularly Ask Brave, which generates answers using information retrieved from the web.
The publishers allege that the feature reproduces portions of their articles and provides detailed summaries that can substitute for visiting the original news websites.
Another focus is Brave's browser functionality. The newspapers claim its Paywall blocker allows readers to access subscription-protected reporting without completing the authentication normally required by publishers.
They also object to Brave's advertising practices, arguing that the browser removes advertisements from news websites by default while offering its own advertising products.
Together, the allegations extend beyond the use of journalism in AI training. They challenge how Brave collects, distributes, displays, and monetizes publishers' content across its search engine, API, and browser.
The three newspapers associated with Alden Global Capital, published through MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing, are pursuing claims involving direct copyright infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, circumvention of technological protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and unjust enrichment under New York law.
The New York Times filed separate copyright and DMCA claims.
The publishers contend that more than two million registered articles are implicated. They are requesting monetary compensation, recovery of profits attributed to the alleged infringement, and a permanent court order preventing the disputed practices. Both cases also seek jury trials.
The New York Times said it had previously asked Brave to stop using its content.
“While we believe in the ethical and responsible use and development of AI, Brave has flouted established copyright law and ignored repeated requests by The Times to stop its infringing conduct,” spokesperson Graham James told The Verge.
Brave has not yet filed responses to the new complaints, although the company has previously defended its right to index publicly available web content.
In March 2025, Brave initiated litigation against News Corp, seeking a judicial declaration that its indexing practices qualify as fair use under copyright law. News Corp responded with its own infringement claims in July.
The new cases therefore add to an existing legal dispute over whether Brave's search infrastructure can lawfully collect and commercially distribute material from news publishers.
According to financial and operating figures cited in the complaints, Brave generated more than $100 million in revenue during 2025 and serves approximately 130 million monthly users. Founded in 2015, the company has raised roughly $250 million, according to private-market estimates.
The newspapers argue that Brave benefits financially from content they produce while reducing opportunities for publishers to earn revenue through subscriptions, advertising, and direct readership.
Their complaints also reference research indicating that AI crawlers generate 95.7% less referral traffic than Google Search, highlighting concerns about whether AI-driven content retrieval provides comparable value to publishers.
The dispute has drawn responses from companies named in the filings. Perplexity Chief Communications Officer Jesse Dwyer criticized the New York Times lawsuit, while several other AI companies identified in the complaints did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Neither lawsuit establishes that the named AI developers themselves violated copyright law through their use of Brave's API. The allegations focus on Brave's collection and distribution of the underlying material, alongside its own consumer-facing products.
The cases join a growing collection of copyright disputes involving news organizations and AI companies. The New York Times and the Alden-owned newspapers have separately pursued litigation against OpenAI and Microsoft, while the Times has also brought claims against Perplexity.
The latest filings place Brave's role as an intermediary at the center of the legal debate. Rather than challenging only companies that develop AI models, the publishers are targeting a search provider that supplies those companies with access to online information.
The outcome could help clarify how copyright law applies to independently operated web indexes that collect publishers' material and sell access to AI developers, particularly when those same systems also power AI-generated answers and browser features that affect access to original reporting.
This analysis is based on reporting from The Verge.
Image courtesy of Brave.
This article was generated with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy and quality.
