Old Knowledge vs. New Tech: Britannica Takes On AI

[1]

If you look up “AI” in the dictionary, do not be surprised if the definition comes with a citation to a federal court case.[2] That is exactly where things stand after Encyclopedia Britannica (“Britannica”) and its sibling company Merriam-Webster (“Webster”) filed suit against Perplexity AI in the Southern District of New York.[3] Perplexity AI’s search engine “Perplexity” is an AI-powered search and answer engine designed to respond conversationally to users’ queries.[4] Instead of providing a list of relevant links to websites, Perplexity directly responds to the query with citation links.[5] 

Britannica’s central claim is that Perplexity is not just giving quick responses to user questions, but is allegedly copying, scraping, and misattributing Britannica’s content in ways that violate both copyright and trademark law.[6] For Britannica, this is more than just a legal dispute, it is a defense of their reputation and business model. The publishers argue that Perplexity has built a product that not only pulls text straight from their websites but also answers users’ queries without sending traffic or revenue back their way.[7] In some cases, the AI reportedly fabricates or “hallucinates” answers, while still stamping Britannica or Webster’s names on the response.[8]

The lawsuit leans on two legal pillars: copyright law and trademark law.[9] First, the Copyright Act of 1976 gives authors exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their works.[10] Britannica argues that Perplexity violated these rights at three different stages.[11] Initially, by scraping Britannica’s websites for training material, then by feeding that material into its AI systems, and finally by outputting responses that are either verbatim or nearly identical to the originals.[12] Second, the Lanham Act prohibits false designations of origin and trademark misuse.[13] By attributing hallucinated content to Britannica and Webster, the complaint alleges Perplexity has blurred the line between what is authoritative and what is AI-generated.[14]

Beyond the courtroom, this case is a perfect snapshot of how the law is working hard to keep up with technology.[15] The Copyright Act and Lanham Act were written for a world of books, music, and logos, and now must find their place in a world of neural networks that can synthesize text in a matter of seconds.[16] The statutes still apply but stretching them over AI outputs highlights the rising difficulties at the forefront of ever-evolving technology.[17] This case accompanies others that reflect the broadening tension between creators and AI developers over the use of copyrighted data in training models.[18] 

A natural question might be: What is the way forward? Some scholars argue that Congress needs to clarify how copyright applies in the AI era by laying down rules for training data, output rights, and attribution.[19] Recent research emphasizes that these approaches are essential to address the deeper challenges posed by generative AI.[20] Without clear rules, the legal system risks creating uncertainty for both creators and AI developers, potentially discouraging innovation or leaving human authors’ contributions inadequately protected.[21] At the same time, thoughtful regulation could provide a framework that balances innovation, accountability, and fairness in a world where AI can generate content at unprecedented speed and scale.[22]

For intellectual property lawyers, this case further illustrates the need for legal regulation and guidance in the age of AI.[23] The mass amounts of data and the way that information is used by AI systems are forcing courts to rethink the boundaries of protection.[24] The outcome could ripple far beyond Britannica or Perplexity by touching every publisher, content creator, and AI developer trying to find their footing in this new ecosystem.[25] 

References

[1] Photo by Ilya Pavlov on Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/photos/monitor-showing-java-programming-OqtafYT5kTw

[2] See generally Blake Brittain, Encyclopedia Britannica Sues Perplexity Over AI “Answer Engine,” Reuters (Sep. 11, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-perplexity-over-ai-answer-engine-2025-09-11/.  

[3] See Complaint, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. & Merriam-Webster, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-7546 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2025).

[4] See Katie Allison, What is Perplexity AI & How Does it Work?, TrustRadius (May 9, 2025), https://solutions.trustradius.com/buyer-blog/how-does-perplexity-ai-work/ (providing an in-depth analysis of Perplexity AI’s search engine).

[5] See id.

[6] See Brittain, supra note 2 (summarizing Encyclopedia Britannica’s complaint against Perplexity).

[7] See id.

[8] See Bianca Bruno, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster Claim Copyright Infringement by AI Startup Perplexity, Courthouse News (Sep. 11, 2025), https://courthousenews.com/encyclopaedia-britannica-and-merriam-webster-claim-copyright-infringement-by-ai-startup-perplexity/ (explaining the lawsuit against Perplexity and Perplexity’s recent business dealings).

[9] See id.

[10] See Abrams & Ochoa, The Law of Copyright § 1:29 (providing legislative history of 1976 Copyright Act).

[11] See generally Brittain, supra note 2.

[12] See Britannica Compl. ¶ 59-78.

[13] See 15 U.S.C. § § 1051 et seq.

[14] See Brittain, supra note 2.

[15] See Shari Davidson, The Growth of AI Law: Exploring Legal Challenges in Artificial Intelligence, The National Law Review (Jan. 28, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/growth-ai-law-exploring-legal-challenges-artificial-intelligence.

[16] See M. Oren Epstein, Stuart D. Levi, Jordan Feirman, & Mana Ghaemmaghami, Copyright Office Publishes Report on Copyrightability of AI-Generated Materials, Skadden (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/02/copyright-office-publishes-report#:~:text=In%20March%202023%2C%20the%20USCO,recommendations%20in%20the%20current%20Report.  

[17] See Adil S. Al-Busaidi, et al., Redefining Boundaries in Innovation and Knowledge Domains: Investigating the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights, 9 J. of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X24001690#sec0075 (investigating impact of generative artificial intelligence on copyright and intellectual property rights).

[18] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Co., 777 F. Supp. 3d 283, 328-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (signaling that federal court is willing to keep major copyright claims alive against AI developers who allegedly incorporate large volumes of copyrighted text into model training and output).

[19] See Wheeler & Baer, Google Decision Demonstrates Need to Overhaul Competition Policy for the AI Era, Brookings (Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/google-decision-demonstrates-need-to-overhaul-competition-policy-for-ai-era/ (explaining need for AI laws following Google’s antitrust lawsuit).

[20] See Al-Busaidi, supra note 13.

[21] See id.

[22] See id.

[23] See id.

[24] See id.

[25] See id.