In a significant legal battle, Brave Software has filed a lawsuit against News Corp in response to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the media conglomerate. The letter warned Brave that it faced potential litigation for allegedly “scraping” copyrighted content from News Corp’s websites, including those of The Wall Street Journal and New York Post. The suit was filed on Wednesday night in San Francisco federal court.
Brave, the company behind the Brave Search engine, argues that its actions are covered under the “fair use” doctrine, asserting that indexing website content is a necessary practice for search engines to operate. The company also contends that News Corp’s actions could undermine advancements in generative AI, claiming that chatbots such as ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini rely on search engine responses, which could be impacted by this dispute.
According to Brave, its market share is a fraction of the search industry, with its search engine holding less than 1% of the market, while Google dominates with nearly 90%, followed by Microsoft’s Bing. Brave accuses News Corp and its partners of attempting to “bully” the company and further cementing the already high barriers to entry in the search engine market.
In a public statement, Robert Thomson, CEO of News Corp, rejected Brave’s claims, labeling the company’s actions as “piratical, parasitical practices” disguised as traditional search. He emphasized that the unauthorized use and sale of News Corp’s copyrighted content to AI engines and other clients is not fair use, but a blatant violation of intellectual property rights.
This legal battle adds to the growing tensions between publishers and tech companies over the use of copyrighted content in support of AI technologies. News Corp has previously filed lawsuits against other companies, including Perplexity AI, for alleged unauthorized copying of its articles.
In its lawsuit, Brave is seeking a declaration from the court that its use of copyrighted News Corp content for search indexing purposes is not a form of infringement. The case highlights the broader conflict between content creators, who argue for protection of their intellectual property, and technology companies, which push for more access to such content to power AI developments.
