IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS—Britannica and Merriam-Webster sue OpenAI for infringing copyrighted works and trademark dilution, (Mar 17, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The complaint alleges OpenAI copies the publication companies’ copyrighted content for use in large language models training by directly or indirectly crawling and scraping content from the publication companies’ websites.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Britannica) and Merriam-Webster, Inc. (Merriam-Webster) (collectively, publication companies) filed a complaint against OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI LP; OpenAI GP LLC; OpenAI LLC; OpenAI OpCo LLC; OpenAI Global LL; OAI Corporation, LLC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; and OpenAI Group PBC (collectively, OpenAI) in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. The publication companies’ seek to hold OpenAI responsible for the substantial harm it is causing and illicit profits it is reaping by infringing on their copyrights and violating their trademark rights, and to protect the public’s continued access to high-quality and trustworthy online information (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02097 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2026)).

Britannica is a household name synonymous with trusted, fact-checked, meticulously researched content. Britannica also owns Merriam-Webster which has been America’s leading provider of language information for more than 180 years. There is a high demand for Britannica and Merriam-Webster’s high-quality content.

OpenAI “is an AI research and deployment company,” and it states that its “mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” OpenAI’s flagship product, ChatGPT, is an artificial intelligence chat platform. ChatGPT generates narrative responses to users using large language models (LLMs) that OpenAI trained “on vast amounts of data from the internet written by humans,” so that ChatGPT’s responses “may sound human-like.” ChatGPT also accesses the Internet to supplement the knowledge bases of the LLMs and provide users with better answers compared to traditional search engine research, which often requires multiple searches and digging through links to find quality sources and the right information for you. Once trained, LLMs may also be deployed in conjunction with a technique called “retrieval-augmented generation” (RAG), which is sometimes referred to as grounding, retrieving, or contextualizing. RAG refers to a technique or process that involves connecting an LLM to external sources of information, such as live search results, to improve the quality of its outputs. OpenAI explained that RAG “is a technique that improves a model’s responses by injecting external context into its prompt at runtime,” so that instead of relying solely on the model’s pre-trained knowledge, RAG retrieves relevant information from connected data sources and uses it to generate a more accurate and context-aware response.

According to the complaint, OpenAI’s ChatGPT-based AI products free ride on the publication companies’ trusted, high-quality content made possible through the diligent work of human researchers, writers, editors, and creators by cannibalizing traffic to OpenAI’s websites with AI-generated summaries of the publication companies’ own content. In addition to OpenAI’s copying of the publication companies’ content for use as training inputs, OpenAI also copies and uses the publication companies’ copyrighted content for its RAG models.

The publication companies contend that OpenAI engages in massive copying of their content with full knowledge and intent. Therefore, OpenAI knew or should have known that output created using LLMs and/or RAG systems that rely on the publication companies’ copied content would similarly mimic or copy their content. In November 2024, the publication companies’ reached out to OpenAI to discuss potential licensing opportunities. After that discussion, an OpenAI representative rebuffed the publication companies’ licensing outreach, and OpenAI never seriously pursued licensing their content. Instead, despite entering into licensing deals with other similar publishers, OpenAI continued to copy the publication companies’ content without compensating them.

The publication companies also contended that they are directly injured by OpenAI’s misuse of their copyrighted works because it deprives them of immediate and potential advertising and subscription revenues. The publication companies claimed that in addition to its massive copyright infringement, OpenAI also violates the publication companies’ trademarks under the Lanham Act when ChatGPT generates made-up content or “hallucinations” and falsely attributes them to the publication companies. OpenAI’s hallucinations, passed off as the publication companies’ high-quality, meticulously researched, and trusted content using the publication companies’ trademarks, damage the value of their trademarks. In addition, OpenAI’s use of the publication companies’ trademarks constitutes false designations of origin and confuses and deceives users into believing that the hallucinations and/or undisclosed omissions are associated with, sponsored by, or approved by them.

The publication companies argued that OpenAI’s conduct also harms the public by eroding the economic incentives necessary for the creation and publication of trustworthy, informative content. In the long term, the publication companies and other publishers will not be able to generate high-quality content because they will not receive a sufficient return on investment via advertising and subscription revenues. The publication companies contended that less content of poorer quality will further result in reduced revenue, and thus less spending on content creation, spawning even less content of even poorer quality and even less revenue, and so on in a downward spiral for content creators.

Claims, remedies sought. The publication companies are seeking a jury trial and assert five causes of action: (1) copyright infringement for OpenAI’s copying of their copyrighted works as inputs for LLM Training and RAG Systems; (2) copyright infringement for OpenAI’s copying of their copyrighted works to create outputs in response to user queries; (3) vicarious copyright infringement against OpenAI Inc.; OpenAI GP, LLC; OpenAI, LP; OAI Corporation, LLC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; OpenAI Group PBC; and OpenAI Global, LLC; (4) contributory copyright infringement against OpenAI; and (5) false designation of origin and dilution of their trademarks. The publication companies’ ask the Court to permanently enjoin OpenAI from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. They also seek statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees as permitted by law, and such other or further relief as the Court may deem just.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-02097.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Yoonhee Gloria Park (Susman Godfrey L.L.P.) for Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Companies: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; Merriam-Webster, Inc.; OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI LP; OpenAI GP, LLC

News: Copyright Trademark NewYorkNews