Britannica & Merriam-Webster Sue OpenAI Over ChatGPT Copyright & Trademark Use

Encyclopaedia Britannica and its dictionary subsidiary, Merriam-Webster, have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Modern York, alleging that the artificial intelligence company improperly used their copyrighted content to train ChatGPT. The complaint, filed on March 13, 2026, accuses OpenAI of reproducing Britannica’s content verbatim in responses generated by its chatbot, mirroring a similar case brought against Perplexity AI in September 2025.

The Core of the Dispute: Copyright and Trademark

At the heart of the legal challenge are claims of both copyright infringement and trademark violation. Britannica contends that OpenAI scraped nearly 100,000 of its online articles to serve as training data for its large language models. The extent of the copying, the complaint states, is fully known only to OpenAI. Britannica argues that this unauthorized use of its subscription-based and licensed reference material undermines its intellectual property rights. The lawsuit asserts that OpenAI violated the Copyright Act of 1976 by reproducing and distributing Britannica’s works without permission, encompassing the scraping of websites, the training of models and the generation of outputs that closely resemble the original content.

Beyond copyright, Britannica is also asserting trademark infringement. The complaint alleges that OpenAI’s AI-generated responses, which may contain inaccuracies or “hallucinations,” are presented alongside Britannica’s and Merriam-Webster’s trademarks, potentially misleading users into believing the publishers endorse or are the source of the information. Britannica’s reputation, built over 250 years, hinges on accuracy, and the association with potentially fabricated information is claimed to cause reputational harm.

A Business Model Under Strain

The lawsuit highlights the growing tension between AI developers and publishers whose content is used to train these systems. Britannica’s business model has evolved to a primarily digital format, relying on subscriptions and advertising revenue driven by web traffic. When ChatGPT provides answers sourced from Britannica’s articles, users may have less incentive to visit the Britannica website directly, effectively diverting potential revenue. This dynamic, the complaint argues, represents OpenAI taking a “free ride” on Britannica’s investment in high-quality content.

Britannica’s transition to a fully digital format in 2012 placed a greater emphasis on the exclusivity and quality of its editorial content. The company’s curated knowledge resources, produced by researchers, writers, and editors, are now considered its core asset. The complaint frames OpenAI’s alleged actions as an existential threat to this model, where the economic benefits of the content accrue to AI platforms rather than its creators. This concern is echoed by other publishers facing similar challenges as AI technology advances.

The Perplexity Precedent and the Broader Legal Landscape

This isn’t the first time Britannica has taken legal action against an AI company. In September 2025, the same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint against Perplexity, an AI-powered answer engine, alleging that it scraped Britannica’s content to generate responses, bypassing standard web crawling protocols. That case is still ongoing. Britannica’s announcement of the Perplexity lawsuit details the initial claims.

The OpenAI case, however, unfolds within a more complex legal environment. OpenAI is currently involved in a larger multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of New York, consolidating over a dozen copyright lawsuits filed by news publishers, including the New York Times. The MDL is nearing the conclude of its fact-finding phase, with a ruling on fair use not expected before summer 2026. Analysts predict that the Britannica-OpenAI case will likely be transferred to the MDL and position on hold pending its outcome, potentially delaying a resolution for years. As of March 16, 2026, the total number of copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in the United States stands at 91, according to legal trackers.

Diverging Approaches: Lawsuits vs. Licensing Deals

The legal battles are unfolding alongside a growing trend of licensing agreements between AI companies and media organizations. News Corp, for example, recently signed a deal with Meta worth up to $50 million per year, and UK publisher Reach agreed to a usage-based deal with Amazon for its Nova AI model. These agreements suggest a potential path forward where AI companies compensate publishers for the use of their content. The Reuters report on the Britannica lawsuit highlights this contrasting trend.

The $1.5 billion settlement in the Anthropic copyright case (Bartz v. Anthropic), involving the use of pirated books for AI training, established a precedent for significant financial consequences in these types of disputes. This settlement, reached in 2025, demonstrates the potential financial risks associated with unauthorized use of copyrighted material in AI development.

What Comes Next: Consolidation and Continued Litigation

The immediate future of the Britannica-OpenAI lawsuit is likely tied to the progress of the broader MDL. The case will likely be consolidated with the other copyright claims against OpenAI, and proceedings will be paused until the MDL reaches a resolution. This means a definitive ruling on the merits of Britannica’s claims could be years away. However, the filing underscores the determination of publishers with established brands and a commitment to accuracy to protect their intellectual property and economic interests in the face of rapidly evolving AI technology. The case, along with others like it, will continue to shape the legal and commercial landscape surrounding AI-generated content.