Britannica and Merriam-Webster have filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, accusing the AI-powered search company of copyright and trademark infringement. The case highlights growing tensions between traditional publishers and modern AI tools that rely on vast amounts of online data to generate answers. At the heart of the dispute is the allegation that Perplexity copied definitions, including Merriam-Webster’s own explanation of the word “plagiarize,” without permission. This legal battle sheds light on how AI companies handle intellectual property and what it could mean for the future of digital publishing.

Perplexity Accused Of Copying Definitions

According to the lawsuit, Britannica and Merriam-Webster claim that Perplexity’s platform reproduces their definitions and content word-for-word. One cited example includes Perplexity allegedly copying Merriam-Webster’s definition of “plagiarize.” Such accusations raise significant questions about fair use, licensing, and the rights of publishers in an age where AI-generated responses dominate online search. For Britannica, which has built its reputation on accuracy and trust, the issue extends beyond definitions—it’s about protecting intellectual property and ensuring proper attribution.

Concerns Over Traffic And Trademarks

Beyond copying content, Britannica and Merriam-Webster argue that Perplexity’s practices harm their online presence by diverting website traffic. Instead of directing users to original sources, Perplexity allegedly keeps readers on its own platform, reducing visibility and engagement for the publishers. The lawsuit also claims trademark infringement, pointing out instances where Perplexity linked their brand names to incomplete or inaccurate AI-generated responses. Such practices could damage the credibility of established publishers while raising ethical concerns about how AI platforms manage sourced information.

What This Lawsuit Means For AI And Publishing

The case against Perplexity could set an important precedent in how AI companies handle copyrighted materials. Publishers worldwide are grappling with similar issues as generative AI tools rely on data created by human experts. If Britannica and Merriam-Webster succeed, the outcome may push AI developers to adopt stricter licensing agreements, ensure better transparency, and create fairer partnerships with content creators. For readers, this lawsuit serves as a reminder of the value of trusted sources and the ongoing challenge of balancing innovation with respect for intellectual property.