Perplexity AI has landed itself in yet another courtroom. Following lawsuits from Nikkei and Asahi Shimbun in Tokyo, Britannica and Merriam-Webster have now filed in the Southern District of New York, accusing the AI answer engine of wholesale scraping and misattribution.
The complaint alleges that Perplexity’s model “systematically harvests” copyrighted definitions and reference content without credit or payment, effectively free-riding on decades of editorial work.
The suit also argues that misattribution damages the publishers’ brand authority , a particularly sensitive point when visibility on Google AI Overviews can make or break traffic.
This follows earlier litigation by Nikkei and Asahi, (reported here last week) who described Perplexity’s behaviour as “ongoing free-riding.” The alignment of U.S. and Japanese publishers signals that AI platforms face not just sporadic challenges but a coordinated legal front.
The stakes are obvious. If publishers succeed, AI companies will be forced into licensing negotiations that cut into their margins. If Perplexity wins, the floodgates open for scraping as a “fair use” free-for-all.
For now, the safest bet is that armies of lawyers on both sides will earn handsomely. Susman Godfrey is representing Britannica and Merriam-Webster in the lawsuit. We’ve yet to track down the Perplexity lawyers at this point – keeping quiet until the first motion to dismiss lands maybe? Everyone else is left waiting to see whether the future of online visibility is licensed, litigated, or simply stolen.
This case highlights a critical turning point in how courts may balance innovation with intellectual property rights. Britannica and Merriam-Webster joining the fight shows publishers are no longer willing to let AI companies scrape their work without consequence. The outcome could set major precedents for licensing, fair use, and the future of online content visibility. Definitely one of the most important legal battles to watch in the AI space right now.