Britannica and Merriam-Webster Sue OpenAI Over Massive Copyright Infringement

Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Manhattan federal court on March 16, 2026, accusing the ChatGPT maker of "massive copyright infringement" for scraping approximately 100,000 copyrighted online articles to train its large language models.

Key Allegations

The complaint rests on several major claims. Britannica alleges that OpenAI used its copyrighted content without authorization to train GPT models, and that ChatGPT generates outputs containing "full or partial verbatim reproductions" of its articles.

The publishers also accuse OpenAI of exploiting their articles through ChatGPT's RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) workflow, a web-scanning mechanism that directly draws on third-party content.

Additionally, the complaint invokes the Lanham Act, a federal trademark statute, accusing ChatGPT of generating inaccurate information and falsely attributing it to Britannica.

Concrete Examples of Alleged Plagiarism

The lawsuit highlights two striking instances. When prompted "How does Merriam-Webster define plagiarize?", ChatGPT reportedly returned a definition identical to the one in the copyrighted dictionary. Similarly, a query about "10 Things You Need to Know About the Hamilton-Burr Duel" produced a response that reproduced the exact selection, ordering, and quotations from a Britannica article, even noting that Britannica had fact-checked it.

Direct Economic Impact

The publishers argue that ChatGPT diverts traffic and advertising revenue that would normally reach their websites. The complaint describes a vicious cycle: reduced revenue leads to lower-quality content, which further diminishes revenue, creating a downward spiral for content creators.

Failed Licensing Negotiations

The dispute comes after failed negotiations. The publishers approached OpenAI in November 2024 to discuss a licensing agreement, but OpenAI rejected the proposal. This attempted amicable resolution strengthens the plaintiffs' position in court.

What the Publishers Want

Britannica and Merriam-Webster are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent OpenAI from continuing to use their material, as well as compensation for damages and alleged profits generated through the infringement.

A Growing Movement

This lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal actions against OpenAI by content publishers. The New York Times, Ziff Davis (owner of Mashable, CNET, IGN, and PC Mag), and more than a dozen newspapers across North America, including the Chicago Tribune and the Toronto Star, have already filed similar suits.

OpenAI has disputed the claims, with a spokesperson stating that its models "empower innovation, and are trained on publicly available data and grounded in fair use."

What This Means for the Industry

This case could redefine the rules for the entire AI industry. If the court sides with the publishers, AI companies could be forced to negotiate licenses with every content source used to train their models, significantly increasing development costs.

The central question remains: can fair use justify the massive use of copyrighted content to train commercial models that then directly compete with their original sources?

Source: TechCrunch