Perplexity, the AI web search startup positioning itself as a challenger to Google, has been pulled deeper into the legal storm surrounding artificial intelligence and intellectual property.
On September 10, Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster filed a lawsuit in New York federal court accusing the company of copyright and trademark infringement, marking another high-profile case in the escalating clash between traditional publishers and AI platforms.
According to the complaint, Britannica claims that Perplexity’s “answer engine” systematically scrapes its websites, siphons away internet traffic, and reproduces copyrighted definitions and entries without authorization. The companies also accuse Perplexity of trademark misuse, alleging that their names are sometimes attached to hallucinated or incomplete content that could erode brand credibility.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
The lawsuit highlights Perplexity’s definition of the word plagiarize as appearing identical to Merriam-Webster’s entry — a case in point, the publishers say, of outright copying.
Perplexity has long faced accusations of operating as a “bullshit machine” that reproduces original material without proper citations. The company is also accused of “stealth crawling,” a practice in which bots bypass website crawler blockers — a tactic some publishers say has become common across the AI sector.
The case is the latest in a string of legal challenges for Perplexity, which counts Amazon founder Jeff Bezos among its investors. It has already clashed with Forbes, The New York Times, and the BBC. News Corp, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal and New York Post, sued Perplexity in October 2024, alleging that the startup “masquerades theft as innovation.”
Yet not all publishers have taken an adversarial approach. Perplexity has rolled out an ad revenue sharing program that attracted Time magazine and the Los Angeles Times. In another sign of cooperation, the World History Encyclopedia joined the initiative and, on September 8, launched a Perplexity-powered AI chatbot to help users sift through its academic database.
How Perplexity’s Case Stacks Up
Perplexity’s legal battles are part of a broader wave of disputes between AI firms and content creators.
OpenAI, perhaps the most visible player, has faced lawsuits from The New York Times, book authors, and media groups alleging copyright violations. While some cases remain unresolved, OpenAI has sought to blunt criticism by signing licensing agreements with publishers like the Associated Press, Axel Springer, and People, Inc. — a strategy that offers a blueprint for industry-wide coexistence.
Anthropic, another major AI firm, recently agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with book publishers. Analysts note that Anthropic’s decision to pay was less about conceding wrongdoing and more about preserving a favorable copyright ruling that recognized AI-generated outputs as derivative works, potentially shielded under fair use.
Compared with those giants, Perplexity’s exposure may be riskier. Unlike OpenAI and Anthropic, it lacks the same scale of partnerships or financial war chest, leaving it more vulnerable if courts rule against it. With multiple lawsuits pending, the startup’s reputation as an “answer engine” that shortcuts traditional search could either accelerate its growth — if settlements normalize licensing fees — or leave it buried under litigation costs.
What’s at Stake?
For Britannica and Merriam-Webster, the case is about more than lost clicks; it’s about the integrity of their brands in an era where AI can blur authorship. For Perplexity, it is a test of survival.
If the courts side with Britannica, it could force the company to abandon scraping practices and negotiate expensive licensing deals — a move that would strain a young firm still dependent on investor backing. If Perplexity secures a favorable outcome, however, it could embolden other AI challengers to expand aggressively without seeking publisher approval.
The lawsuit thus feeds into a larger question hanging over the industry: will AI companies and publishers resolve their tensions through the courts, through billion-dollar settlements, or through a new licensing ecosystem that forces reluctant actors into deals?