Even dictionaries sue Perplexity AI over copyright infringement (but also false attributions)

Merriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica have filed a federal lawsuit against Perplexity AI, alleging the company’s “answer engine” unlawfully scrapes and copies their copyrighted content without permission or compensation. The lawsuit also claims Perplexity generates false AI hallucinations that are wrongly attributed to the dictionary and encyclopedia publishers, seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to stop the alleged misuse.

What you should know: This marks the latest in a growing series of copyright lawsuits targeting Perplexity’s content practices across multiple industries.

• The complaint was filed in New York federal court and seeks both monetary damages and a court order blocking Perplexity from misusing the publishers’ content.
• Beyond unauthorized copying, the lawsuit specifically addresses instances where Perplexity’s AI creates inaccurate information and falsely attributes it to Britannica or Merriam-Webster.
• Last year, the Wall Street Journal and New York Post sued Perplexity on similar copyright infringement claims.
• Just last month, two Japanese media companies—Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun—filed comparable lawsuits against the AI company.

The big picture: Publishers are increasingly challenging AI companies’ practice of scraping web content to train and operate their systems without authorization or revenue sharing.

What they’re saying: The complaint argues that Perplexity’s business model directly undermines traditional web publishing economics.

• “Perplexity’s so-called ‘answer engine’ eliminates users’ clicks on Plaintiffs’ and other web publishers’ websites—and, in turn, starves web publishers of revenue—by generating responses to users’ queries that substitute the content from other information websites,” the filing reads.
• “To build its substitute product, Perplexity engages in massive copying of Plaintiffs’ and other web publishers’ protected content without authorization or remuneration.”

Why this matters: The lawsuit highlights the growing tension between AI companies seeking to build comprehensive knowledge systems and content creators demanding fair compensation for their intellectual property, potentially setting important precedents for how AI systems can legally access and use published materials.