Britannica sues OpenAI over alleged misuse of content to train AI models

Encyclopaedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in a federal court in Manhattan, accusing the firm of improperly using their copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence systems.

The Hindu reported that in a complaint lodged on Friday, Britannica alleged that OpenAI incorporated tens of thousands of its online articles, as well as dictionary and encyclopaedia entries, into the training data for its AI models, including the chatbot ChatGPT.

The publisher argued that such use has harmed its business by reducing traffic to its platforms, as users increasingly rely on AI-generated summaries instead of visiting original sources.

The lawsuit claims that ChatGPT can reproduce portions of Britannica’s content in a manner that is “near-verbatim”, raising concerns about copyright infringement. It further alleges that OpenAI copied close to 100,000 articles without authorisation as part of its model training process.

Britannica has also accused the company of misusing its trademarks, alleging that the chatbot sometimes cites Britannica in responses in ways that could mislead users into believing the content is officially licensed or endorsed. The complaint additionally references instances of so-called AI “hallucinations”, where incorrect information is attributed to the publisher.

In response, an OpenAI spokesperson said the company’s models are trained on publicly available data and operate within the bounds of fair use, adding that the technology is intended to support innovation.

The case adds to a growing number of legal challenges brought by publishers, authors and media organisations against technology firms over the use of copyrighted material in AI training. Britannica had previously initiated a similar lawsuit against Perplexity AI, which remains ongoing.

Britannica is seeking financial damages and a court order to prevent further alleged misuse of its content, setting the stage for another closely watched dispute over intellectual property in the age of generative AI.