Short answer: On 2 November 2026 the New York Times Company, and separately the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune and Orlando Sentinel, filed federal lawsuits against Brave Software. They allege that Brave copies articles into a search index it sells to AI companies, that its Ask Brave answers reproduce paywalled text, and that its browser’s paywall blocker and ad replacement take revenue. The complaints rely heavily on dated tests, where the plaintiffs saved the prompts and the outputs. If you publish writing, the practical lesson is to keep your own dated captures of what you published, your crawler logs and any tests you run. A TimeBind dates the exact files you keep. It does not show that anyone copied your work.
Last checked 13 November 2026. General information for writers, publishers and site owners, not legal advice. The complaints are allegations. Brave had not yet answered in court when the sources used here were published, and this page does not say whether any claim is right.
Table of Contents
What the complaints allege
According to PPC Land’s detailed report (3 November 2026), the Times’ case is number 26-cv-9549 and the second, brought by Daily News, the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel, is 26-cv-9554, both in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Each pleads five counts: direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, circumvention of a technological measure under the DMCA, and unjust enrichment under New York law over ad substitution.
The complaints allege that Brave built an index of more than 30 billion pages by crawling the web without disclosing the name of its crawler, then sells access to that index through a search API and uses it for its own Ask Brave answers. They describe tests in which Ask Brave, when asked, produced hundreds of words of paywalled articles, and in which the API returned large parts of articles, including, in one Times example, 1,291 of 1,295 words. They allege that a Paywall blocker setting in the browser opens paywalled pages without a login. The unjust enrichment count, the complaints say, does not depend on any copying.
These are the plaintiffs’ allegations. PPC Land notes that Brave had not yet answered in court and that the filings leave several points unestablished, such as which AI companies use the API now and how much revenue is tied to which product. Brave’s published crawler page, as PPC Land summarises it, says the crawler does not use a distinct user agent and will not crawl pages that Googlebot is not allowed to crawl.
Why it matters to writers who are not the New York Times
Most of the complaints’ weight comes from records the plaintiffs made: saved prompts, saved outputs, and the original articles set beside them. The same habit is open to any writer or small publisher. If an AI answer tool shows your article text, a dated capture of the prompt, the answer and the original page is far more useful than a memory of it. The complaints also emphasise registered works, so check what registration and notice rules apply where you are.
Why people are searching for this
Measured on 13 November 2026. On X, two Reuters posts on the lawsuit (2 November) had 49,989 and 44,888 impressions, and a Slashdot post (2 November) had 2,562. Google autocomplete in the United States returned “brave paywall blocker,” “brave paywall bypass” and “brave paywall filter” on 13 November. YouTube explainers on the case had small audiences (for example 224 views on 4 November). Demand here is real but modest. Counts keep moving.
Checklist for writers and small publishers
- Keep a dated capture of each piece as published. Save the page as it appeared (a PDF or HTML archive) with the publication date, and keep the final text file.
- Keep your paywall or access settings on record. Note what was behind a login on a given date, and keep dated copies of your robots.txt and terms of use. See also the shared robots.txt AI-training signal.
- Keep server logs for crawler access. Logs show which user agents fetched which pages and when. Keep them, dated, for the periods that matter.
- If you test an AI tool on your own writing, record the test. Save the exact prompt, the full output, the tool and the date and time, as the plaintiffs did. Do not alter the output.
- Do not overstate what a test shows. One output shows what that tool returned for that prompt on that day. It does not show how often it happens or how the tool was built.
- Know your registration position. The complaints stress registered copyrights. Rules vary by country, so check what registration or notice you need to keep.
- Keep correspondence. If you write to a company about use of your work, keep the letter and any reply, dated.
What a TimeBind does and does not show
A TimeBind is a dated, checkable record that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time and still matches. The SHA-256 fingerprint is made in your browser and the file is never uploaded. The record is anchored to Bitcoin (a Merkle root in an OP_RETURN). Your first Pooled TimeBind is free; after that, TimeBinds start from US$5, and an ASAP TimeBind is US$15. See how it works.
For a writer, it can date the final text, a capture of the published page, a copy of robots.txt and a test record of an AI prompt and its output. It does not show that anyone copied your writing, does not show how an AI tool was built or trained, and does not decide a claim. It helps you show which files you held by a given time and that they have not been altered since.
Limits
This page relies on PPC Land (3 November 2026, read in full 13 November), the search summary of the complaint PDF hosted by the New York Times Company and the X counts above. We did not read the complaints in full. The allegations are the plaintiffs’ and have not been tested in court. This is not legal advice.
Tools that can help
Use the bulk SHA-256 manifest to fingerprint a folder of final texts, page captures and test records, then keep a dated copy of the manifest. To see how a chatbot reuses a specific article of yours, try the chatbot article reuse checker.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Are the lawsuit claims proven?
No. They are allegations in complaints filed on 2 November 2026. PPC Land notes Brave had not yet answered in court.
-
Who is suing Brave?
The New York Times Company in one case, and the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune and Orlando Sentinel in another, according to PPC Land. Both are in the Southern District of New York.
-
What should I save if an AI tool shows my article?
The exact prompt, the full output, the tool name and the date and time, plus a dated capture of your original page. Do not edit the output.
-
Can a TimeBind show an AI tool copied my writing?
No. It can date the files you hold, such as your text and your test record. It does not show how any tool was built or what it copied.
-
Does a TimeBind block AI crawlers?
No. It does not stop scraping or crawling. It dates the exact files you keep.
Sources checked
- PPC Land, Luis Rijo, “New York Times and three papers sue Brave over AI answers and ad blocking,” 3 November 2026, https://ppc.land/new-york-times-and-three-papers-sue-brave-over-ai-answers-and-ad-blocking/ (read 13 November 2026)
- New York Times Company v. Brave Software, Inc., S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-09549, complaint dated 2 November 2026, https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2026/11/new-york-times-brave-complaint-11-2-26.pdf (seen in search results 13 November 2026; not read in full)
- X posts by Reuters and Slashdot (2 November 2026), YouTube view counts and Google autocomplete (US), checked 13 November 2026
Date the published text and test records you keep yourself
Your first Pooled TimeBind is free, with no credit card required. After that, TimeBinds start from US$5, and an ASAP TimeBind is US$15. Click here to start, or see plans and pricing.
