Perplexity Hit with Lawsuits from Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster

Two of the world’s most trusted knowledge institutions just declared war on artificial intelligence. Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster filed lawsuits last week against Perplexity, accusing the $20 billion AI startup of systematically stealing their copyrighted content without permission. This is a fight that could redefine how AI companies operate, and whether they can keep building billion-dollar businesses on other people’s work.

The hidden reality behind AI “answer engines”

Here is the part most people skip over. Perplexity’s AI doesn’t just search the web like Google. The company says it “pulls information from the Internet the moment you ask a question,” using sophisticated web scraping to extract massive amounts of data, then stitch it into tidy replies. Perplexity’s Retrieval Augmented Generation technology gathers content in real time and repackages it as original answers. Not a blue-links list. A straight answer, right there in the box.

Britannica alleges that Perplexity integrated their content verbatim into AI responses, a copy-paste machine with a glossy interface. Even more damaging, Perplexity seems to have ignored the Robots Exclusion Protocol, which tells bots to keep off copyrighted material.

The publishers say this diverts traffic away from their platforms, bleeding the clicks and subscriptions that keep their lights on. Why visit the source if the summary gives you everything?

The coordinated assault threatening the entire industry

The lawsuits are piling up. Multiple major media entities including Dow Jones and News Corp are already suing Perplexity, and Japan’s largest newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun launched its own case this week. Different plaintiffs, same core complaint.

The stakes keep rising. Courts have already shown they’re taking this seriously, and Perplexity’s attempts to dismiss similar cases have been denied, a signal that judges plan to dig in. If that pace holds, discovery could get uncomfortable.

What makes this perilous for the whole field is scale. Multiple media companies and content producers have filed lawsuits against generative AI companies throughout 2024 and 2025, turning scattered disputes into a coordinated legal barrage. Some AI researchers warn that strict copyright enforcement could chill innovation, but creators say they are done subsidizing systems that train on their work, then sidestep them.

PR judo or reasonable self-defense?

A ruling against Perplexity could force a wholesale rewrite of the AI playbook. Licensing deals that cost billions. New technical guardrails. Slower answers, maybe, but permissioned ones. Perplexity has already started offering publishers revenue-sharing plans as criticism mounts, a hint that the current model is wobbling.

Then there is the PR judo. Aravind Srinivas, Perplexity’s CEO, claims media companies are being “incredibly short-sighted” and should partner rather than sue. The company argues that nobody has a monopoly on facts, while publishers counter that facts are not the point, the costly, human-edited presentation is.

This case demonstrates the evolving challenge of applying traditional copyright law to modern AI technologies, and its resolution could either unleash a wave of AI deals or force a hard reset on how these systems are built and monetized. With billions in valuations on the line and the future of information access in play, all eyes are on that New York courtroom.