Perplexity’s surprise $42.5 million revenue‑sharing plan signals a shift toward paying publishers when AI answers rely on their work. The offer has ignited both excitement and skepticism across social platforms.
Introduction
Search startup Perplexity AI has announced a revenue‑sharing plan that many see as a watershed moment for AI‑powered search engines. The new initiative – which the company says will distribute $42.5 million over 12 months to news organisations and creators through its Comet Plus subscription program – is trending across X and Reddit. Supporters and critics alike have taken to social media to debate whether the Perplexity AI revenue‑sharing plan will fairly compensate publishers or merely soften the blow from ongoing copyright lawsuits. The story has become one of the day’s most talked‑about AI controversies, and for good reason.
Perplexity’s payout: how it works
Perplexity positions itself as an answer engine rather than a traditional search site. When a user asks a question, the platform synthesises material from around the web into a natural language answer and lists sources at the bottom. Until now that process has generated no direct revenue for the publishers whose articles feed the answers. Under the new program, users can sign up for Comet Plus, a $5‑per‑month add‑on to Perplexity’s existing premium tier. The company plans to allocate 80 percent of revenues from the subscription into a pool for publishers. That pool will reportedly total $42.5 million during the first year and will be divided based on how often a publisher’s content appears in answers.
The initiative comes at a time when major media outlets have begun suing Perplexity for scraping and paraphrasing their work. Lawsuits filed by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun claim the startup has built a business on copyrighted reporting without permission. Perplexity counters that the lawsuits mischaracterise fair use and that the platform always cites sources. By offering to share subscription revenue, the company hopes to ease tensions and build a more sustainable relationship with the media.
Why publishers are both intrigued and wary
Publishers have long complained that generative AI tools reproduce their journalism without compensating them. Google and OpenAI have been targeted by similar suits. Perplexity’s plan, then, is the first time a prominent AI search engine has proactively offered to share earnings. Many in the media industry are cautiously optimistic: in theory, a shared revenue pool could help independent newsrooms survive in an era where clicks and ad dollars are harder to come by.
Yet skepticism abounds. For one thing, the subscription is optional. If most users continue using the free version of Perplexity, the revenue pot could be far smaller than the headline figure suggests. The program also relies on Perplexity’s proprietary analytics to measure each publisher’s contribution. Without external auditing, some fear the payouts could favour large legacy outlets over smaller independent sites. Others note that 80 percent of subscription revenue may not amount to much if the company uses creative accounting for costs like infrastructure, marketing or legal fees.
Another concern is precedent. Accepting Perplexity’s terms could weaken publishers’ legal arguments against other AI platforms. The lawsuits currently argue that copyright law entitles news organisations to negotiate licences up front rather than being paid after the fact. A revenue‑sharing deal may be interpreted by courts as tacit approval of unauthorised scraping, making it harder to seek damages from bigger players later. As one newsroom executive put it in a trending post, “If we agree to peanuts now, will the courts think we consented to the theft of our work?”
Social media reactions
The announcement immediately caught fire on X. Technology commentators shared headlines with exclamation points, while digital rights activists blasted the plan as a cynical PR move. A viral tweet summarised the details – the $42.5 million pot, the 80 percent share going to publishers and the subscription model – and asked whether this was “too little, too late.” The post racked up thousands of likes and replies within hours. On Reddit’s r/technology and r/journalism communities, heated threads debated whether this could become a viable model or if it was simply hush money ahead of court battles. Some commenters joked that Perplexity was buying its way out of lawsuits, while others praised the company for at least acknowledging the issue.
Perplexity’s chief executive responded on X, stressing that the program is “the first step in building an AI economy that fairly rewards original reporting.” He argued that generative AI will never succeed if it cannibalises the very institutions that produce reliable information. Skeptics countered that the platform should have negotiated licences before using reporters’ work, not after being sued. The public back‑and‑forth underscores how polarised the discussion has become – and why the company’s brand is now closely tied to how the plan unfolds.
What this means for AI search and journalism
The revenue‑sharing proposal could set an important precedent for AI search engines. If Perplexity manages to convince publishers that its model works, larger companies like Google or OpenAI might feel pressured to adopt similar schemes. In Europe, regulators have floated taxes on search engines to fund journalism, and Canada’s Online News Act requires platforms to strike compensation deals with news outlets. Perplexity’s initiative could be seen as a voluntary attempt to stave off such regulation.
On the other hand, if the program flops or fails to provide meaningful income, it could strengthen the case for more aggressive legal action. Even supportive publishers warn that the dollars must add up. They point to subscription services like Apple News+, which has struggled to make a dent in newsroom budgets despite Apple’s global reach. In an industry where advertising revenue has been decimated and many local papers have shut down, every new funding source is scrutinised.
A search engine under siege
Perplexity’s timing may be calculated. The company has come under increasing public scrutiny for how its “answer engine” handles copyrighted content. Investigative reporting earlier this month alleged that Perplexity not only summarises paywalled articles but sometimes inserts incorrect information, potentially damaging the reputations of the outlets involved. The lawsuits cite these examples as evidence that the company is harming both the economics and trustworthiness of journalism.
The startup argues that its architecture is fundamentally different from large‑language‑model chatbots like ChatGPT. Perplexity uses a combination of web crawling, semantic indexing and reasoning agents to produce answers, and always links to its sources. However, because it reformulates and paraphrases those sources, many casual users may not click through to the original site. In essence, the company captures the attention and keeps the user on its own platform – and that is why publishers argue they deserve compensation.
Looking ahead
Whether the Perplexity AI revenue‑sharing plan succeeds will depend on several factors: how many users sign up for Comet Plus; how transparently the company reports usage data; and whether publishers decide the payouts are worth dropping legal claims. Observers will also watch to see if Perplexity uses the program to attract exclusive content partnerships.
Similar deals exist in traditional media – for example, streaming platforms often pay for early rights to shows – but AI search is uncharted territory. And with global breakthroughs like DeepSeek V3.1 entering the scene, the pressure on Western AI firms to adapt quickly is only increasing.
For now, the conversation is as much about trust as it is about money. In the age of generative AI, trust in sources has become fragile. Perplexity’s plan touches on the heart of that issue: can an AI service profit from journalism without undermining journalism itself? The coming months will reveal whether the company has found a middle path or simply opened a new front in the battle between tech firms and the fourth estate.
Frequently asked questions
What is Perplexity’s revenue‑sharing plan?
It’s a program that sets aside millions of dollars from a premium subscription service called Comet Plus. When users pay the $5 monthly fee, 80 percent of that revenue goes into a pool distributed to publishers whose articles the AI uses to answer questions. The goal is to compensate creators for their work.
How will Perplexity decide who gets paid?
The company tracks which sources appear in its answers and assigns a percentage of the pool based on usage. Publishers must sign up to participate. Critics worry that the distribution formula is opaque and could favour larger outlets over smaller, independent journalists.
Does this resolve the copyright lawsuits against Perplexity?
Not necessarily. Some lawsuits argue that using copyrighted content without a licence is unlawful regardless of subsequent payments. Accepting the revenue‑sharing deal could complicate publishers’ legal strategies, so many are waiting to see the payouts before dropping any claims.
Why are people on social media so divided?
Many see the plan as an overdue acknowledgment that AI companies rely on journalism. Others think it’s a calculated move to shift the narrative away from allegations of theft. Posts on X and Reddit show that the public is split between admiration and suspicion.
Will other AI companies follow Perplexity’s lead?
It’s possible. If the scheme attracts subscribers and placates publishers, larger platforms may adopt similar models. If it fails to deliver meaningful revenue, courts and regulators may impose more stringent rules instead.
