NewsGuard, a company best known for rating the reliability of online news sources, on Tuesday launched NewsGuard AI, a chatbot that draws exclusively from a database of journalist-vetted stories instead of the open web.

The launch comes as concerns persist over the accuracy of AI-generated responses. NewsGuard said a yearlong audit of leading AI models found they repeated false or misleading claims on controversial news topics 35% of the time. The company argues that limited responses to vetted sources can help reduce the spread of misinformation through AI systems. 

NewsGuard AI attributes information directly to the publishers whose reporting is used in its responses, unlike other chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity.

Participanting publishers include The Atlantic and other regional newspapers, opinion journals, and public media organizations. Readers, subscribers and members of some participating outlets will receive a free trial of NewsGuard AI followed by an offer for 33% off the chatbot’s standard $6 monthly subscription. 

The company also says it will share revenue with participating publishers through a 50-50 revenue-sharing model and affiliate-style subscription referrals, though it has not publicly disclosed the formula used to calculate payouts.

NewsGuard says its journalists have reviewed more than 36,000 sources since 2018, including newspapers, magazines, opinion publications, local news outlets, independent newsletters, government websites, think tanks, hospitals and research universities. Of these, roughly 12,000 have been rated reliable and are eligible to be cited by NewsGuard AI. 

The new service enters a rapidly evolving market in which publishers are negotiating licensing agreements with AI companies while also challenging the unauthorized use of their reporting. Media organizations have struck content deals with companies including OpenAI, Amazon and Meta, even as lawsuits and public disputes over AI scraping continue across the industry.

Chris Richmond, CEO of the fact-checking website Snopes, said the arrangement addressed concerns his organization has had with other AI products.

“Snopes has restricted most AI chatbots from scraping our content,” Richmond said. “But we’re happy to partner with NewsGuard on a model that does this the right way.” 

In addition to drawing from vetted sources, NewsGuard AI says it incorporates 41 editorial safeguards. These include access to NewsGuard’s database of 64,000 debunked false claims circulating online, which the company says help prevent the chatbot from repeating known misinformation. Users can also access detailed explanations debunking false claims and share them with others. 

“Few things will matter more in the near future than the ability of humans to figure out what’s real, what’s false, and what’s confabulated nonsense,” said Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic. “This is particularly true when it comes to news.”

NewsGuard is also targeting educational institutions. Students at participating schools and universities will receive free access while enrolled. The company says the chatbot has been designed to refuse requests to write essays or reports for users. 

“NewsGuard AI can provide reliable research while not substituting for students doing their own writing and thinking,” said NewsGuard’s Chief Operating Officer Matt Skibinski.

Local language versions of NewsGuard AI will be available in French, German and Italian in September. 

The post Can AI deliver trustworthy news? NewsGuard thinks its new Chatbot has the answer appeared first on The Media Copilot.

UK publishers can now opt out of appearing in Google’s AI search results—the AI Overviews that appear at the top of many searches—and the regulator that made it happen says the point is to give publishers leverage to negotiate payment for their content.

According to the BBC, the Competition and Markets Authority, the UK’s official competition regulator, announced on Wednesday that websites based in the country can choose not to appear in Google’s AI Overviews, the AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of search results. Sites that opt out will not receive traffic or impressions from those generative AI features. The CMA called it a “world-first requirement” that puts publishers “in a stronger position to negotiate content deals with Google.”

The timing matters. Many publishers have seen significant traffic drops since Google moved traditional links down the results page and replaced them with AI summaries at the top. The opt-out mechanism is both a way to control traffic from AI as well as a negotiating lever. If a publisher removes itself from Google’s free AI distribution, the CMA’s position is that the same publisher can then demand payment to be included in AI results on different terms.

Google controls more than 90% of the online search market in the UK, according to the CMA. For almost three decades, websites and publishers have relied on Google’s search results to drive users to their businesses. That dependency is what the CMA’s requirement is designed to disrupt—at least in the AI layer.

The BBC quotes the regulator’s chief executive, Sarah Cardell, saying the requirement would result in “fair treatment, greater transparency and meaningful choice for businesses and consumers.” The CMA also said Google must properly attribute publishers’ content which appears in AI search results, with clear links back to their sites.

Google has nine months to bring all the changes in, but the CMA says it wants to see “important parts” of the requirements implemented earlier. The CMA has extra powers over Google and other large tech companies designated as having an influential position in the digital market, and it says it will be monitoring developments in Google search with the ability to act further if needed.

In a blog published the same day, Google said it was testing the new opt-out features in the UK first before rolling them out globally. The company said it was engaging with regulators “to ensure website owners have the right tools as user preferences evolve.”

The broader context is a shift in how people find information online. Some users have moved from traditional search engines to AI chatbots that produce answers based on information scraped from existing websites, often without driving traffic back to the source. The CMA’s intervention is an attempt to give publishers a seat at the table in a search landscape that has changed substantially since the last set of regulatory frameworks were designed.

Whether nine months is long enough to change the economic relationship between publishers and AI search platforms depends on how seriously both sides take the negotiating position the CMA is trying to create.

The post UK publishers can now opt out of Google AI Overveiws appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The Associated Press, founded in the mid-1800s to help New York newspapers share reporting costs, is offering buyouts to an unspecified number of U.S.-based journalists — the latest move in a long-running transformation from wire service to technology data company.

The News Media Guild, which represents AP journalists, said more than 120 staff members received buyout offers on Monday. AP executive editor and senior vice president Julie Pace said the goal is to reduce global headcount by less than 5%, though she acknowledged the cut among U.S. staff would likely exceed that figure depending on how many people accept.

“We’re not a newspaper company and we haven’t been for quite some time,” Pace said.

The numbers back her up. Over the past four years, AP’s newspaper revenue has fallen 25%. Big newspaper publishers, once the organization’s financial foundation, now account for just 10% of income. Gannett and McClatchy both dropped AP in 2024. Lee Enterprises — publisher of The Buffalo News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch — is now seeking an early exit from a contract due to expire at the end of 2026.

Where the growth is coming from

While the newspaper business contracts, AP’s technology revenue has grown 200% over the same four-year period. Kristin Heitmann, senior vice president and chief revenue officer, put it plainly: “If you can think of a large technology company, they are a customer of ours.”

AP was among the first news organizations to move aggressively into AI deals, agreeing in 2023 to lease part of its text archive to OpenAI. It has since launched on Snowflake Marketplace to license data directly to enterprises, stood up AP Intelligence to sell data to financial and advertising sectors, and last year secured a deal with Google to deliver news through the Gemini chatbot — Google’s first content deal with a news publisher.

Elections data is another growth vector. AP saw a 30% increase in election data customers between the 2020 and 2024 cycles, and last month agreed to sell U.S. elections data to Kalshi, the world’s largest predictions market. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all signed on to the AP elections service last year.

What the restructuring looks like

Beyond the headcount reduction, AP is doubling down on video — it has already doubled the number of U.S. video journalists since 2022 — and deploying rapid-response teams that contribute to major stories regardless of geographic base. The organization says it will maintain a presence in all 50 states.

The union is pushing back. In a statement, the News Media Guild said AP “refuses to offer [staff] appropriate training and tools” and is “flirting with artificial intelligence — ignoring the opportunity to differentiate AP news stories as ones that are and always will be created by human journalists.” The union also said AP declined a request last week to bargain over AI use.

AP did not immediately comment on either claim.

Pace framed the restructuring as a strategic choice made from stability, not distress. “The AP is not in trouble,” she said. “We’re making these changes from a position of strength.”

The post AP offers buyouts as AI and tech companies now drive revenue growth appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The Internet is undergoing a fundamental shift — and two of its largest infrastructure companies want to be the ones who set the rules for it.

Cloudflare and GoDaddy announced a strategic partnership Tuesday designed to give creators and small businesses more visibility and control over how AI agents access their content. The centerpiece: GoDaddy is integrating Cloudflare’s AI Crawl Control directly into its website hosting platform, letting site owners allow, block, or signal that payment is required before any AI crawler touches their content. The companies are also supporting open standards — specifically GoDaddy’s own Agent Name Service (ANS) and Cloudflare’s Web Bot Auth — that would give AI agents a cryptographically verified identity rather than operating anonymously across the web.

The problem they’re solving is real and growing. AI agents are increasingly browsing, summarizing, and retrieving content on behalf of users — but most operate without identifying themselves, leaving site owners with no record of who scraped what and no mechanism to negotiate terms. “There needs to be a way to ensure that businesses and creators have the tools to easily identify, manage, and trust AI traffic,” the companies said in a joint statement.

ANS, which GoDaddy introduced as a global open standard, uses DNS and public key infrastructure to assign verifiable identities to AI agents — a layer of trust that lets site owners distinguish legitimate agents from impersonators. Cloudflare, which introduced Web Bot Auth in 2025 along with a Signature Agent Card developers can use to share their agent’s stated purpose, is supporting the standard alongside its own tools. The broader goal is a permission-based model for the agentic web — and a technical foundation for a fair value exchange in what both companies call the Answer Engine era. It’s a dynamic that mirrors broader tensions: as AI companies negotiate directly with publishers over content access, the underlying question of who controls and monetizes AI’s use of the web is far from settled.

“The Internet is evolving into a high-velocity, AI-driven ecosystem, and that requires a new kind of transparent infrastructure,” said Stephanie Cohen, Chief Strategy Officer at Cloudflare. “By putting tools like AI Crawl Control and open standards into the hands of website owners, we are providing essential underpinnings for a new Internet business model.”

For publishers and creators watching their search traffic erode as AI answers replace clicks, the partnership is a concrete — if early — signal that the infrastructure layer is beginning to take shape. Whether it scales to the full open web remains an open question. Cloudflare has already been converting web pages to markdown for AI agents, and the battle over how AI crawlers pay for content is accelerating.

“We move at the speed of the Internet,” said GoDaddy Chief Strategy Officer Jared Sine, “and we’re working with the broader industry to ensure the agentic open web does too.”

The post Cloudflare and GoDaddy want to set the rules for the AI agent web appeared first on The Media Copilot.

A federal judge has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit brought by two Arkansas news publishers against Google, ruling that they lack standing to sue over the general search market and that key claims are too old to pursue — even as the judge acknowledged Google’s monopoly power in blunt terms.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, writing in a 41-page opinion, dismissed the case filed in 2023 by Helena World Chronicle and Emmerich Newspapers. The publishers argued Google had leveraged its search dominance to effectively become “America’s largest news publisher” — monopolizing the online news market, diverting their traffic, and depriving them of licensing revenue without paying for it.

Mehta didn’t dispute the underlying picture. “The acquisitions of Android, YouTube, and DeepMind may very well have been anticompetitive,” he wrote. “But Plaintiffs are 10 to 20 years too late; those claims are now stale.” The conduct that built Google’s dominance happened too long ago to sue over. The statute of limitations swallowed the core of the case.

On the market definition, Mehta found a structural problem: the publishers aren’t competitors in the general search market — they’re publishers of news content. Their alleged injuries (lost traffic, lost licensing fees, higher production costs) happen in the news publishing market, not the search market. That mismatch undercut their antitrust standing. The judge also dismissed the tying claim — that Google forced users into its search ecosystem as a condition of using Android — finding it inadequately pleaded.

The ruling is appealable, and the case remains on file with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The outcome is discouraging but not surprising. Small regional publishers face enormous structural barriers in antitrust litigation against Google — the legal bar for market definition and monopoly power in adjacent markets is high, discovery is expensive, and the statute of limitations problem is real. The conduct that matters most happened years ago, and courts have been reluctant to retroactively reach it.

It’s worth noting that Judge Mehta is the same judge who ruled last year that Google illegally maintained its search monopoly in the DOJ case — so his skepticism of the publishers’ theory here isn’t a vindication of Google, just a finding that these particular plaintiffs, with this particular theory, didn’t clear the legal threshold. The broader question of what Google’s search dominance means for publishers is very much unsettled. The appeals court will have the final word.

The post Court dismisses Arkansas publishers’ antitrust suit against Google appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Arc XP, the content platform built by The Washington Post and used by publishers including The Irish Times, Sky News, and Graham Media Group, has integrated TollBit directly into its delivery infrastructure, giving the publishers who use Arc a turnkey way to detect, control, and charge AI bots for access to their content.

The partnership, announced Monday, works through Arc XP’s Edge Integration Framework. Once activated, publishers can monitor AI bot traffic through TollBit’s analytics, classify bots in real time, block them outright, or redirect them to a TollBit Bot Paywall that enforces access rules and pricing. Participation in the monetization program is optional.

The distinction from most bot-management tools is the commercial layer. Most blocking tools stop at blocking, but TollBit connects detection to a licensing marketplace. AI companies that want real-time access to publisher content can pay for it programmatically through TollBit’s agent authentication system. Arc XP handles the edge integration and policy controls; TollBit manages the payments.

“AI companies are extracting value from publisher content at scale,” said Sharad Vivek, Global Head of Partnerships at Arc XP. “Publishers need control and transparency, not guesswork.”

The integration is significant partly because of Arc XP’s footprint. Supporting more than 2,500 sites and billions of pageviews a month, it’s one of the larger CMS platforms in news media. A native TollBit integration means a large chunk of the publisher ecosystem can now flip on AI bot monetization from a single dashboard rather than building custom infrastructure.

Whether that monetization materializes at scale is still an open question. AI licensing revenue models are early and unproven for most publishers, and AI scrapers have shown a consistent pattern of bypassing publisher protections when it suits them. The commercial viability of bot paywalls depends on AI companies choosing to pay rather than route around them, which is far from guaranteed. We’ve also looked at TollBit’s data handling before—worth a read for publishers considering the integration.

Still, the infrastructure is getting built. The fact that a platform the size of Arc XP is embedding this natively suggests the industry is moving from blocking as the default to a more structured access-and-compensation model—even if the economics aren’t settled yet.

The post Arc XP integrates TollBit so publishers can charge AI bots for content access appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Encyclopedia Britannica and its Merriam-Webster subsidiary sued OpenAI in Manhattan federal court on Friday, alleging the company used nearly 100,000 of their articles to train ChatGPT without permission, and then used the chatbot to cannibalize the traffic that encyclopedias depend on to survive.

The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, says OpenAI made “near-verbatim” copies of Britannica’s encyclopedia entries, dictionary definitions and reference content to train its GPT large language models. It also accuses OpenAI of trademark infringement—specifically, generating AI “hallucinations” that falsely cite Britannica as a source, implying a permission that was never granted.

OpenAI’s response was the standard playbook: “Our models empower innovation, and are trained on publicly available data and grounded in fair use.”

Britannica isn’t new to this fight. The company sued Perplexity last September over similar allegations—that Perplexity’s answer engine reproduces its content without attribution or compensation. That case is still ongoing. The OpenAI suit extends the same theory to a much larger defendant with much deeper pockets and a far larger user base.

The core grievance goes beyond copyright. Britannica’s complaint frames the harm as a flywheel: OpenAI trains on Britannica’s content, then deploys a product that answers the same questions Britannica’s websites would have answered, diverting users before they ever arrive. It’s the same structural argument publishers have been making about AI search summaries, and it’s why policymakers in Europe and Brazil are exploring statutory licensing as a way to compensate content creators whose work powers AI without delivering any traffic in return.

Britannica requested unspecified monetary damages and an injunction blocking further infringement. The case joins a growing docket of high-stakes AI copyright litigation heading for a reckoning in U.S. courts over whether training on publicly available data constitutes fair use—a question on which the industry, publishers, and regulators are all waiting for an answer.

The post Encyclopedia Britannica sues OpenAI for training ChatGPT on its content appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The fight over whether AI companies should pay for news is starting to move out of private deal rooms and into policy. According to Poynter, policymakers in Europe, Brazil and other jurisdictions are exploring statutory licensing models that would require payment for the use of publisher content in AI systems.

That matters because the current market is lopsided. A handful of large publishers have negotiated licensing deals with major AI firms, while many smaller outlets are left with lawsuits, opt-out tools and not much leverage. A statutory regime would not end that fight, but it could change the terrain from bespoke negotiations to rules-based compensation.

For publishers, the appeal is obvious. Licensing laws could offer a cleaner route to payment than years of copyright litigation, especially if courts keep moving slowly on training-data disputes. Poynter reported that the European Parliament was set to vote March 10 on a proposal that could open the door to such a framework. An earlier European Parliament press release shows lawmakers were already pressing for stronger protections around copyrighted works used by generative AI.

The broader pressure is not coming from Europe alone. Poynter said Brazil is weighing a draft bill expected in April that could also require payments to publishers. That suggests the compensation debate is widening beyond the U.S. lawsuits that have dominated headlines. It is becoming a policy question about whether AI systems should be allowed to ingest and monetize journalism without a standard payment mechanism.

That does not mean publishers are aligned on the best route. Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News Media Alliance, told Poynter, “If we get the right verdicts, we will have a functional marketplace.” That line captures the split in industry strategy. One camp still wants courts to establish leverage first. Another sees statutory licensing as a faster answer to a market that now favors the biggest companies on both sides.

Why this matters for newsrooms

The practical question for newsroom leaders is not just whether they get paid. It is whether payment systems arrive in time to matter.

Publishers are already dealing with two linked problems: AI answers that may reduce referral traffic and AI training practices that may use newsroom work without clear permission. Reuters reported in February that the European Publishers Council filed an EU antitrust complaint over Google AI Overviews, arguing that AI-generated summaries can harm publisher traffic and revenue. Statutory licensing would not solve the traffic problem on its own, but it would at least create a compensation track when traffic leakage and content reuse happen together.

The industry is also becoming more organized. Poynter pointed to the UK’s SPUR coalition and Danish publishers’ legal action against OpenAI as evidence that publishers are moving beyond isolated complaints. The underlying argument is straightforward: if generative AI depends on journalism as input, journalism should not be treated as a free raw material.

What comes next

The obvious caveat is that statutory licensing still has major unanswered questions. There is no settled model yet for who would collect payments, how rates would be set or how money would be distributed among large and small publishers. That is where many legislative ideas go soft.

Still, the significance of this week’s story is that compensation is no longer just a matter of private contracts and courtroom theory. It is turning into a live policy option. If lawmakers push it forward, publishers may gain a more predictable route to payment. If they do not, the market is likely to remain a patchwork: rich publishers cut deals, everyone else waits on judges.

For newsroom executives, this is one to watch closely. The question is no longer whether publishers want payment from AI companies. It is whether governments are ready to build the machinery to force it.

The post A new licensing push could force AI companies to pay publishers for news appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Microsoft announced its Publisher Content Marketplace on Feb. 4, a platform designed to broker licensing deals between AI companies and publishers. The marketplace lets publishers control how their content is licensed for AI training and receive payment based on actual usage.

The platform, called PCM, functions as a central hub where publishers license text, images and other media to AI developers under terms they set. Microsoft positions it as infrastructure for what it calls “the agentic web,” where AI agents will increasingly mediate information access.

The marketplace addresses a friction point in AI development: companies need training data, publishers want compensation, but negotiating individual deals is slow and opaque. PCM standardizes the process with usage tracking and per-use payment models.

Major publishers have already signed licensing deals outside this marketplace. News Corp struck agreements with both Google and OpenAI. The Associated Press, The Atlantic, Vox Media, Axel Springer, The Washington Post and TIME have all licensed content to AI companies in individual negotiations.

Microsoft’s marketplace changes the dynamic from bilateral negotiations to a platform model. Publishers post their content and terms. AI developers browse and license what they need. Microsoft handles the technical infrastructure and presumably takes a percentage, though the company has not disclosed marketplace fees.

The timing matters. Meta signed multiyear licensing deals with CNN, Fox News, USA Today, Le Monde Group and others in December 2025 to bring real-time news into its Meta AI assistant. These deals happened before Microsoft’s marketplace launched, suggesting appetite for systematic content licensing continues to grow.

For newsrooms, the marketplace represents another revenue option in a landscape where direct traffic from AI-powered search threatens existing business models. Digiday reported in December that publishers give Big Tech’s AI licensing deals mixed grades, with concerns about appearing in AI search products that cannibalize their own traffic channels.

The marketplace model could make licensing more accessible to smaller publishers who lack resources for complex contract negotiations. But questions remain about pricing power, usage verification and whether per-use payments will generate meaningful revenue compared to lump-sum deals some publishers have negotiated directly.

OpenAI reportedly plans to retire several models including GPT-4.1 in February 2026, according to Future Tools. That kind of model churn could complicate licensing agreements tied to specific AI systems rather than platform-level deals.

Microsoft’s marketplace is live now, starting with Copilot as the first AI builder using licensed content.

The debate over AI licensing comes as newsrooms grapple with whether to pursue litigation or negotiation with AI companies. Some publishers view licensing as a pragmatic revenue stream, while others worry about AI scrapers bypassing their protections entirely.

The post Microsoft launches marketplace to broker AI licensing deals between publishers and developers appeared first on The Media Copilot.

OpenAI is rolling out advertising in ChatGPT, but the dozens of publishers who signed content licensing deals with the company won’t see a cent of the ad revenue.

The company announced last week that ads will begin appearing for U.S. users on free accounts and the new $8/month ChatGPT Go tier. Paid Pro, Business and Enterprise subscriptions remain ad-free.

The Information reported that OpenAI has already pitched the placements to dozens of advertisers. The model is pay-per-view rather than pay-per-click, with ads appearing below ChatGPT’s responses — not within them.

The contrast with Perplexity is striking. The AI search startup launched its Publishers’ Program in 2024, offering revenue sharing when a publisher’s content is referenced in an ad-supported interaction. Perplexity later expanded this with Comet Plus, which pays publishers for traffic from its AI browser.

OpenAI has made no similar commitment. Publishers including The Atlantic, Vox Media, Axel Springer and others signed licensing deals that give OpenAI access to their content for model training and real-time retrieval. Those deals cover content access — not a share of downstream advertising revenue.

“Ads do not influence the answers ChatGPT gives you,” OpenAI wrote in its announcement. “We keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers, and we never sell your data.”

The move represents a reversal from CEO Sam Altman’s earlier stance. “Ads plus AI is sort of uniquely unsettling to me,” he said at a Harvard Business School talk in May 2024. “I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us.”

With over 800 million weekly active users, ChatGPT’s free tier represents significant monetization potential. For publishers watching their traffic decline as users get answers without clicking through, the lack of revenue sharing adds insult to injury.

The post OpenAI launches ChatGPT ads with no revenue share for publishers appeared first on The Media Copilot.