Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster sue Perplexity

Perplexity is finding out that not everyone’s thrilled about its rise. 

This week, Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster sued Perplexity, accusing it of copyright infringement, trademark violation, and stealing away precious web traffic.

The complaint, filed in New York federal court, paints a picture of Perplexity as a clever-but-rude houseguest: it eats the food (content), doesn’t ask permission, and leaves crumbs (AI summaries) that keep people from ever visiting the original sites. 

Britannica and Merriam-Webster, who rely on traffic to sell ads and subscriptions, say the AI tool is “free riding” on their hard-earned work, and in the process, “cannibalizing” their revenue.

Unlike many AI lawsuits, which usually focus on training data secretly scraped from the web, this one zeroes in on Perplexity’s real-time search model. 

Instead of just pulling from what it learned months ago, the tool actively fetches answers from the internet, packages them into breezy summaries, and spares users from clicking links. 

Convenient for the user, not so great if you’re the site losing clicks.

The suit also raises another issue: AI hallucinations. Perplexity, like its peers, sometimes gets things wrong. 

But Britannica and Merriam-Webster claim that when those errors are mistakenly attributed to their brands, it crosses into trademark violation. (Via: Reuters)

Imagine asking for a dictionary definition and the AI insisting “irregardless” is totally fine, not exactly the PR Merriam-Webster signed up for.

The plaintiffs are asking for money (amount undisclosed), but the case adds to a growing pile of legal headaches for Perplexity. 

Just last year, News Corp sued it for repurposing Dow Jones and New York Post content without permission. That case is still ongoing.

Perplexity, for its part, has been trying to smooth things over with publishers. Last month, it announced a program to pay outlets a fee when its AI uses their content. 

Whether that’s enough to fend off Britannica’s and Merriam-Webster’s lawyers is another story.

For now, the dictionary and the encyclopedia have teamed up to send Perplexity a not-so-subtle definition of their own: “lawsuit.”

Should AI search tools like Perplexity be required to pay publishers for using their content, or is summarizing publicly available information fair use? Do you think the real issue is AI companies profiting from others’ work, or traditional publishers struggling to adapt their business models to the digital age? Tell us below in the comments, or reach us via Twitter or Facebook.