Merriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica Sue Perplexity Over Alleged Content Scraping
The Case Against Perplexity
Merriam-Webster and its parent company, Encyclopedia Britannica, filed a lawsuit this week in federal court in New York. At the center of their complaint is Perplexity’s fast-growing “answer engine,” which they allege relies on unauthorized copying of dictionary and encyclopedia entries.
The suit argues that Perplexity’s system directly reproduces their copyrighted definitions and reference material, depriving users of any reason to visit their official websites. As one example, the filing points to a query where Perplexity returned Merriam-Webster’s definition of “plagiarize” verbatim, the same wording found in the print and online versions of the Collegiate Dictionary.
“Perplexity engages in massive copying of Plaintiffs’ and other publishers’ protected content without authorization or compensation,” the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages as well as a court order preventing further use of their material.
Why It Matters
Britannica emphasized the commercial stakes: its flagship site, Britannica.com, recorded more than one billion visits in 2024, with an additional 1.4 billion sessions across affiliated sites. Traffic of that scale underpins advertising, subscriptions, and brand relevance. By keeping users inside its own platform rather than directing them to original sources, Perplexity undermines that model, Britannica argues.
The case also speaks to a broader collision between traditional publishers and AI companies building search alternatives. Perplexity markets its tool as a faster, more direct replacement for search engines like Google, but publishers say that model only works if it leans on their intellectual property without fair compensation.
A Growing List of Legal Battles
The lawsuit from Britannica and Merriam-Webster is only the latest in a string of legal challenges aimed at Perplexity.
-
Dow Jones and the New York Post filed suit in October 2024, accusing the company of lifting content from The Wall Street Journal and other publications. A judge recently denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss that case.
-
Japanese outlets Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun launched similar claims in mid-2025.
-
The New York Times and BBC have both publicly threatened legal action, adding to industry-wide pressure.
Meanwhile, Perplexity continues to pursue aggressive expansion. Reports earlier this year revealed the company’s interest in acquiring TikTok, a move that, if successful, would give it unprecedented scale.
What Comes Next
The outcome of these cases could reshape how AI search products interact with publishers’ intellectual property. If courts side with Britannica and Merriam-Webster, Perplexity and other AI firms may be forced to strike licensing deals or redesign their systems. If not, reference publishers risk losing both traffic and revenue as AI-generated answers replace traditional site visits.
Either way, this lawsuit underscores a defining battle of the AI era: who controls access to knowledge, and who gets paid for it.
