Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster Sue OpenAI Over AI‑Generated Content
Key Points
- Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam‑Webster filed a copyright and trademark lawsuit against OpenAI in New York.
- The complaint alleges OpenAI used thousands of the publishers’ articles as training data for ChatGPT.
- AI‑generated responses are said to contain verbatim or near‑verbatim excerpts of the copyrighted content.
- The lawsuit claims this practice harms the publishers’ digital revenue and brand reputation.
- Legal claims are based on copyright infringement and trademark misrepresentation under the Lanham Act.
- The case mirrors a prior lawsuit against Perplexity and may be folded into a larger multidistrict litigation.
- Publishers argue that AI systems are free‑riding on their high‑quality content, diverting traffic and profit.
- Industry trends show both litigation and licensing deals between publishers and AI companies.
Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam‑Webster have filed a copyright and trademark lawsuit against OpenAI in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI used thousands of the publishers’ articles as training data for ChatGPT and then generated responses that reproduce the content without permission, harming the publishers’ revenue and brand reputation. The case mirrors a prior suit against Perplexity and may be consolidated into a larger multidistrict litigation involving other news publishers.
Background
In a complaint filed in New York, Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam‑Webster allege that OpenAI’s ChatGPT was trained on nearly 100,000 of Britannica’s online articles. The plaintiffs claim the AI system then produces responses that contain verbatim or near‑verbatim excerpts of their copyrighted material, effectively providing users with the information without directing them to the publishers’ sites.
Legal Claims
The lawsuit rests on two legal pillars. First, it asserts copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, arguing that OpenAI’s scraping of the publishers’ websites, use of the content as training inputs, and generation of outputs that replicate the original works violate the authors’ exclusive rights. Second, it invokes trademark law under the Lanham Act, contending that presenting AI‑generated answers alongside the Britannica and Merriam‑Webster brands misleads users into believing the publishers have endorsed or authored the responses, causing reputational harm.
Impact on Business Model
Britannica’s business has shifted from print to a digital subscription and advertising model that depends on web traffic. When ChatGPT answers questions that would otherwise lead users to Britannica’s site, the publishers argue that OpenAI is “free‑riding” on their high‑quality content, diverting value and revenue away from the original creators. The complaint frames this alleged copying as not only a legal violation but also an existential threat to a model that relies on the economic returns from its editorial assets.
Related Lawsuits and Industry Context
The filing follows a similar suit filed in September 2025 against the AI‑powered answer engine Perplexity, which also alleged unauthorized scraping and verbatim reproductions. That case remains pending. OpenAI is already involved in a large multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of New York that consolidates more than a dozen copyright actions brought by news publishers. Analysts expect the Britannica‑OpenAI case may be transferred to that MDL and stayed pending its outcome, potentially delaying a final resolution for years.
While many publishers are pursuing litigation, others are signing licensing agreements with AI firms. Recent examples include a multi‑year deal between News Corp and Meta and a usage‑based agreement between Reach and Amazon’s Nova AI model. The Anthropic case, which settled for $1.5 billion, demonstrates the financial stakes involved in AI copyright disputes.
Potential Outcomes
The lawsuit adds to a growing tally of copyright actions against AI companies in the United States, bringing the total to 91 according to a legal tracker. The plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged harms and an injunction to prevent further unauthorized use of their content. How the case will ultimately be resolved—through settlement, trial, or consolidation into the existing MDL—remains uncertain, but it underscores that major reference publishers are unwilling to wait for industry self‑regulation and are actively defending their intellectual property rights.