On 13 March 2026, the complaint was filed in New York, accusing OpenAI of using reference publishers’ content for AI training data without permission, generating responses that reproduce it verbatim, similar to a previous lawsuit against Perplexity.
Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have filed a copyright and trademark lawsuit against OpenAI in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that ChatGPT uses their copyrighted content without authorization, harming both publishers.
The complaint accuses OpenAI of using about 100,000 of Britannica’s articles for AI training. The extent of copying is only known to OpenAI.
Britannica asserts that OpenAI’s disregard for its intellectual property rights is unlawful, asking for accountability for the harm and profits gained through infringement.
“ChatGPT then provides narrative responses to user queries that often contain verbatim or near-verbatim reproductions, summaries, or abridgements of original content, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.” – from the complaint.
The lawsuit is based on two legal grounds, similar to the case against Perplexity in 2025. The first is copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976. Britannica claims OpenAI violated rights by scraping its websites, using the content for training, and generating outputs based on this content.
The second pillar is trademark law under the Lanham Act. By using AI-generated responses containing inaccuracies alongside famous trademarks, OpenAI misleads users into thinking Britannica has endorsed these responses.
Britannica’s reputation, built over 250 years, suffers harm from being associated with inaccurate AI information.
Britannica’s business model relies on digital subscriptions and ad revenue. ChatGPT’s use of Britannica’s content without compensation diminishes direct web traffic and value for Britannica.
Britannica ended its print edition in 2012, transitioning to digital. Its editorial content’s quality and exclusivity are central to its business, risking economic returns shifting to AI platforms.
Britannica’s previous case against Perplexity alleged real-time scraping and reproduction of content, which is ongoing.
The OpenAI case, while similar, is part of a broader multidistrict litigation in the SDNY, involving other news publishers, possibly delaying resolution for years.
According to a tracker, there are 91 copyright lawsuits against AI companies in the US. OpenAI hadn’t responded to the complaint at the time.
Amid diverging legal and licensing approaches to AI content, some media organizations have signed licensing deals with AI companies. The Anthropic case’s settlement sets a precedent for significant financial outcomes.
Britannica’s lawsuit against OpenAI’s outcome depends partly on the MDL’s direction, but publishers with strong brand equity are pushing back against self-regulation.