Politics

Britannica and Merriam-Webster sue OpenAI over use of reference content in AI training

Tuesday, 17 March 2026 5:55AM UTC

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have filed a federal lawsuit against OpenAI in Manhattan, alleging unauthorised use of their reference materials to train large language models, potentially reshaping industry norms and legal boundaries.

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have launched a federal lawsuit in Manhattan accusing OpenAI of using their reference content without permission to train its generative AI systems, a legal move they say has eroded visits to their sites. According to the complaint filed on 13 March 2026, the publishers allege OpenAI incorporated online encyclopedia and dictionary entries into models that power ChatGPT and that the company's AI-produced summaries have "cannibalised" their web traffic. Industry observers note this follows a pattern of publishers taking tech firms to court over alleged unauthorised use of copyrighted material. Sources by paragraph: ^[2],^[7]

The suit frames the dispute as part of a wider industry clash over how large language models are built, with Britannica arguing the defendants copied substantial portions of its content rather than merely transforming it. The plaintiffs say that, beyond lost traffic, the extraction and replication of curated reference material undermines the commercial value of professionally produced scholarship and lexicography. Sources by paragraph: ^[2],^[5]

Legal fights over training data have multiplied in recent years. High-profile authors filed claims against Microsoft that alleged the company used large collections of books without consent to develop its AI, and multiple copyright suits against OpenAI and Microsoft were consolidated in New York to streamline pretrial proceedings. Tech companies have defended their practices by invoking fair use, arguing model training produces new, transformative outputs rather than direct substitutions. Sources by paragraph: ^[3],^[4]

Britannica is not new to litigation over AI use: last year it sued the AI answer engine Perplexity, accusing that service of scraping and reproducing its articles and dictionary entries and thereby diverting readers. That earlier complaint similarly charged that AI-generated answers were substantially similar to the plaintiffs' original material and harmed site traffic; the Perplexity case remains active. Sources by paragraph: ^[5],^[6]

Legal analysts say the OpenAI suit could sharpen judicial guidance on whether large-scale ingestion of copyrighted reference works for model training is permissible and, if not, what remedies publishers may obtain. The outcome could influence licensing practices, model-development workflows and the balance between free public access to knowledge and the rights of content creators and curators. Sources by paragraph: ^[2],^[7]

For publishers, authors and technology firms alike, the coming months may determine whether courts endorse broad fair-use protections for model builders or require negotiated licences and clearer attribution or remuneration mechanisms. Industry consolidation of related cases means rulings in New York could set precedent with wide commercial and technological consequences. Sources by paragraph: ^[2],^[3]

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: ^[1]

Sources by paragraph:

Paragraph 1: ^[2], ^[7]
Paragraph 2: ^[2], ^[5]
Paragraph 3: ^[3], ^[4]
Paragraph 4: ^[5], ^[6]
Paragraph 5: ^[2], ^[7]
Paragraph 6: ^[2], ^[3]

Source: Noah Wire Services

More on this

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2026/03/17/britannica-files-lawsuit-against-openai-over-alleged-misuse-of-reference-materials - Please view link - unable to able to access data
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2026/03/17/britannica-files-lawsuit-against-openai-over-alleged-misuse-of-reference-materials - Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in a Manhattan federal court, alleging that OpenAI unlawfully used their reference materials to train AI models, including ChatGPT. The lawsuit claims that OpenAI's AI-generated summaries of Britannica's content have negatively impacted the publisher's web traffic. This legal action is part of a broader trend of copyright holders taking legal steps against technology companies for using protected material in AI development without permission. Britannica had previously filed a similar lawsuit against AI startup Perplexity AI, which is still ongoing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/microsoft-ai-authors-lawsuit - A group of high-profile authors has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in a New York federal court, alleging that the company used their books without permission to train its AI models. The authors claim that Microsoft used a collection of nearly 200,000 pirated books to train its AI product, Megatron, and seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work misused. This case is part of a series of legal actions by copyright holders against tech companies accused of using protected material to develop AI systems without obtaining permission.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/04/us-authors-copyright-lawsuits-against-openai-and-microsoft-combined-in-new-york-with-newspaper-actions - Twelve U.S. copyright cases against OpenAI and Microsoft have been consolidated in New York. The cases involve authors and news outlets alleging that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted works without consent to train large language models underlying generative AI products like ChatGPT and Copilot. The consolidation aims to streamline pretrial proceedings and eliminate inconsistent rulings. Tech companies argue that their use of copyrighted works constitutes fair use, allowing the unauthorised use of copyrighted works under certain circumstances.
https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2387217 - Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have sued Perplexity AI in New York federal court, accusing the AI-powered query engine of violating U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit alleges that Perplexity scraped their websites, copied their articles in response to user questions, and generated answers substantially similar to the plaintiffs' articles. The complaint also claims that Perplexity's AI-generated summaries have 'cannibalised' traffic to the plaintiffs' websites.
https://www.engadget.com/ai/perplexitys-definition-of-copyright-gets-it-sued-by-the-dictionary-213408625.html - Merriam-Webster and its parent company, Encyclopaedia Britannica, have filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, claiming that the AI company's 'answer engine' product unlawfully copies their copyrighted materials. The plaintiffs allege that Perplexity's AI generates responses that substitute content from other information websites, including Britannica and Merriam-Webster, without authorization or remuneration. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an order to block Perplexity from misusing their content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_and_copyright - Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. sued Perplexity AI search engine in September 2025, claiming that the results pulled material from their encyclopedia and Merriam-Webster dictionary website, denying them visits by users, without permission or compensation, as well as generated false results due to the nature of AI that is then attributed to their sites. It later sued OpenAI in March 2026 under similar terms.

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 8

Notes: The article reports on a lawsuit filed on 13 March 2026, which is recent. However, the source, Pakistan Today, is a niche publication with limited reach, raising concerns about the freshness and originality of the content. The article cites multiple sources, including Wikipedia and MLex, which may not be independent. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 13 March 2026, indicating the narrative is fresh but potentially recycled from other sources.

Quotes check

Score: 6

Notes: The article includes direct quotes attributed to the lawsuit and statements from Britannica. However, these quotes cannot be independently verified through the provided sources. The reliance on a single source for these quotes raises concerns about their authenticity and accuracy.

Source reliability

Score: 4

Notes: Pakistan Today is a niche publication with limited reach, which may affect the reliability of the information. The article cites sources like Wikipedia and MLex, which may not be independent or authoritative. The lack of direct access to the lawsuit document further diminishes the reliability of the information presented.

Plausibility check

Score: 7

Notes: The claims about Britannica suing OpenAI over alleged misuse of reference materials are plausible, given the ongoing legal actions in the AI industry. However, the lack of independent verification and reliance on a single source raises questions about the accuracy of the specific details presented.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The article reports on a recent lawsuit filed by Britannica against OpenAI, alleging misuse of reference materials. However, the reliance on a niche publication with limited reach, the inability to independently verify quotes, and the lack of access to the original lawsuit document raise significant concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. Given these issues, the content does not meet the necessary standards for publication under our editorial indemnity.

Artificial Intelligence
Copyright Law
OpenAI