Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster filed a federal copyright lawsuit against OpenAI on March 13, 2026, alleging the AI giant scraped nearly 100,000 of their articles to train ChatGPT without authorisation. But the case—filed as Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. et al v. OpenAI Inc., 1:26-cv-02097 (S.D.N.Y.)—may never reach trial on its own merits.

The Consolidation Problem

Legal analysts tracking AI copyright litigation expect the Britannica case to be transferred into the existing multidistrict litigation (MDL) already overseen by Judge Sidney Stein in the same court. That MDL consolidates 16 copyright lawsuits against OpenAI, including high-profile cases from The New York Times and various author groups.

The MDL is approaching the close of fact discovery, with no fair use ruling expected before summer 2026. Once transferred and stayed pending the MDL's outcome, the Britannica case won't see meaningful resolution until 2027 at the earliest.

"This brings the total number of copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in the United States to 91," according to litigation trackers. The consolidation reflects both the scale of the copyright challenge facing AI companies and the courts' preference for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

What Britannica Actually Alleges

The complaint structures its copyright theory around three distinct acts. First, that OpenAI scraped Britannica's websites at "massive scale" using datasets like Common Crawl to train its large language models. Second, that ChatGPT generates responses containing "full or partial verbatim reproductions" of Britannica content. Third, that OpenAI uses Britannica articles in its retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system to pull real-time information when responding to queries.

The publishers provided pointed examples. When prompted "How does Merriam-Webster define plagiarize?" ChatGPT allegedly reproduced the dictionary definition nearly verbatim. A query about the Hamilton-Burr duel reportedly returned identical selections and ordering of quotes from a copyrighted Britannica article, including specific snippets curated by Britannica's editors.

The Lanham Act Twist

Britannica's complaint includes a trademark claim under the Lanham Act—a relatively novel approach in AI copyright litigation. The publishers allege that when ChatGPT hallucinates made-up content and attributes it to Britannica or Merriam-Webster, it creates false designation of origin and trademark dilution.

"Because Britannica's reputation rests on accuracy built over more than 250 years," the complaint argues, associating that brand with AI-fabricated information causes direct reputational harm. This theory could have broader implications for authoritative sources whose brands get falsely cited by AI systems.

The Licensing Failure

Britannica contacted OpenAI about licensing in November 2024. OpenAI "never seriously pursued" the opportunity, according to the complaint, even as it signed deals with other publishers. News Corp reached an agreement with Meta worth up to $50 million per year in March 2026, demonstrating that licensing is commercially viable when AI companies choose to engage.

The pattern—publisher reaches out, AI company stalls, publisher sues—has become familiar across the litigation landscape.

MDL Dynamics and Discovery Wins

Meanwhile, the existing MDL has produced significant discovery victories for plaintiffs. On January 5, 2026, Judge Stein affirmed Magistrate Judge Ona Wang's order compelling OpenAI to produce all 20 million ChatGPT logs in a sample, not just conversations implicating plaintiffs' works that OpenAI wanted to cherry-pick.

On March 9, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel production of "the reservoirs of 78 million and 10 million logs" on top of the 20 million already ordered. OpenAI's privacy arguments were rejected—the court found that users who voluntarily submitted conversations to ChatGPT have weaker privacy interests than subjects of covert surveillance.

What's Actually at Stake

If fair use arguments fail in the MDL, OpenAI faces exposure far beyond Britannica. The company would confront retroactive licensing demands from every publisher that can demonstrate its content was used in training. The Anthropic settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic—$1.5 billion for use of pirated books—established that these cases can produce significant financial consequences.

The Britannica case adds reference publishers to the coalition of news organisations, authors, and content creators challenging AI training practices. But unlike entertainment content, dictionaries and encyclopedias compete directly with ChatGPT's informational role, strengthening substitution arguments over mere data ingestion.

The next procedural step: watch for OpenAI's motion to transfer the case to the MDL. That motion, and Judge Stein's response, will determine whether Britannica gets its day in court or joins the queue waiting for the MDL's resolution.