Chatbot article-reuse checkerwhen an answer looks close to your article

Why this came up in November 2026

On 2 November 2026, The New York Times Company filed a complaint against Brave Software in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case 1:26-cv-09549. The complaint alleges a paywall workaround and deals with AI firms, among other claims. Those are allegations in a filed complaint, not findings by a court. Press reports followed, including Ars Technica on 3 November. A widely shared 4 November post about the filing had, on 12 November 2026, 5,771 likes and 176,505 impressions on the X API.

On 3 November 2026, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered an opinion in Like Company v Google Ireland, Case C-250/25, the first generative-AI case to reach the Court of Justice of the European Union. An advocate general's opinion is not binding on the Court; the judges will rule later. In the official press release, the advocate general suggested that training a large language model is, as a rule, permitted under the text and data mining exception, while a chatbot answer that reuses a press publication's form of expression so a user can skip the original, or that is produced after circumventing effective access measures such as a paywall, may in certain circumstances infringe the press publisher's right. Individual posts about the opinion were modest; the official release, the press coverage and Google autocomplete suggestions such as "like company v google ag opinion" and "like company v google ireland (c-250/25)" are the primary public record cited here.

This page does not take a position on either matter, and it does not use anyone's likeness. The checks are written so they work the next time a writer or a publisher captures a chatbot answer that looks close to a published piece.

Sources: the 2 November complaint PDF, Ars Technica, a 4 November post on the filing, CJEU press release No 155/26, and the X story on the advocate general opinion.

If the article is one you may need to stand behind later

For a reported piece, a newsletter, a manuscript excerpt or any other text you may have to show again:

1. Keep a complete copy of the file as it was published, with the URL and the date, in a place you control.
2. Make a TimeBind of that exact file. The fingerprint is made in your browser and the file stays on your device.
3. Store the file, the chat record and the Proof of Time Certificate together.

A TimeBind shows the exact file existed no later than the recorded time and still matches. It does not show who wrote it, it does not prove copying, and it is not legal advice.

What a TimeBind shows, and what it does not. It shows that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time and that a copy shown later still matches its fingerprint. It does not show who made the file, who owns it, that its contents are true, or whether AI was used to make or edit it. This is general information, not legal advice.