News Encyclopaedia Britannica v OpenAI 2026

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster Sue OpenAI for Copyright and Trademark Infringement

On March 13, 2026, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster, Inc. filed a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that OpenAI scraped nearly 100,000 Britannica articles and Merriam-Webster dictionary entries without authorization to train ChatGPT.

Claims

The complaint asserts two primary claims:

• Copyright infringement: OpenAI unauthorizedly copied and used nearly 100,000 Britannica encyclopedia articles and Merriam-Webster dictionary entries — including definitions, etymologies, and usage examples — as training data for ChatGPT. The scale and commercial nature of the copying challenges any fair use defense.
• Trademark dilution: ChatGPT generates outputs that mimic the style and language of Britannica and Merriam-Webster, potentially misleading users about the source and damaging the brands' reputations for accuracy and reliability. Notably, ChatGPT has been known to generate content falsely attributed to Britannica and Merriam-Webster, compounding the harm.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to block OpenAI's alleged ongoing infringement.

Significance

The lawsuit is notable for several reasons:

• It involves reference works (encyclopedias and dictionaries) rather than the creative works (books, music, video) that dominate most AI copyright cases, testing whether factual reference materials receive similar copyright protection against AI training.
• The trademark dilution claim is novel in the AI copyright context, adding a brand-protection dimension not present in most AI training lawsuits.
• It joins over 90 active copyright suits against U.S. AI companies, most filed in the S.D.N.Y.

The case also highlights the issue of AI hallucinations attributed to authoritative sources: when ChatGPT generates content and falsely attributes it to Britannica or Merriam-Webster, it damages those brands' reputations for accuracy — a unique harm that distinguishes reference publishers from other copyright plaintiffs.

Procedural Status

The case was filed on March 13, 2026, and remains in early stages as of April 2026, with no reported motions, responses, or rulings.

See Also

• Encyclopaedia Britannica v OpenAI Inc — Case page with detailed information
• Gracenote Media Services v OpenAI — Nielsen subsidiary sues OpenAI over copyrighted metadata database
• Kadrey v Meta Platforms Inc — Authors v. Meta over book training data
• Cases — Active AI litigation tracker