Loading story…
Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster sued OpenAI in Manhattan federal court, alleging the company used nearly 100,000 Britannica articles and other copyrighted reference content without authorization to train its large language models. The complaint says ChatGPT can reproduce or closely paraphrase Britannica encyclopedia and dictionary material, and further alleges OpenAI uses retrieval-augmented generation to pull from Britannica content in real time. The publishers argue that these outputs substitute for visits to their own sites, reducing subscription and advertising revenue that supports their editorial operations.
The lawsuit also includes trademark-related claims, alleging ChatGPT has presented fabricated material under Britannica's name and displayed incomplete reproductions in ways that could imply endorsement. OpenAI disputed the allegations, saying its models are trained on publicly available data and are grounded in fair use. The case adds to a broader wave of litigation by publishers and other rights holders against AI companies over model training and output practices, and follows Britannica's separate pending lawsuit against Perplexity AI.
Track how attackers are adapting to this technology.
2 events from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
OpenAI responded to the lawsuit by denying the allegations and stating that its models are trained on publicly available data under fair use. The company framed the case as part of the broader legal dispute over whether AI training on public content is lawful.
Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Manhattan federal court, alleging OpenAI copied their copyrighted encyclopedia and dictionary content without authorization to train its AI models. The complaint also alleges ChatGPT reproduces or closely paraphrases their material, uses Britannica content in real time via retrieval-augmented generation, and harms traffic and revenue while creating misleading trademark-related attributions.
Vulnerabilities, threat actors, malware, products, organizations, and breaches Mallory has linked to this story.
Follow how adversaries are adapting to this technology, and where it touches your stack today.
2 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
Map indicators from this story to your assets and identify affected systems in minutes.
Every observed campaign, victim, and pivot linked to actors named in this story.
Malware, exploits, and IOCs connected to the activity described here.
YARA, Sigma, and Snort rules deployed to your SIEM as soon as they’re published.
Get matching new stories delivered to your team as they break — not the next morning.
Ask questions about this story and take action on the answers.
Other stories Mallory is tracking that overlap on entities, sources, or topic labels.
Research and legal reporting highlighted that **LLMs can be induced to reproduce near-verbatim copyrighted text** from their training data, raising both copyright and data-governance risk. Coverage cited a prior US court outcome involving **Anthropic**, where training on copyrighted works was treated as potentially *transformative* (fair use), but **retaining pirated copies** was characterized as infringing and reportedly contributed to a **$1.5B settlement**; separate reporting referenced a German decision finding infringement where a model memorized song lyrics. Anthropic disputed the practical exploitability of the demonstrated “jailbreaking” approach and reiterated that its models learn statistical patterns rather than storing exact dataset copies, while researchers and legal experts argued that full-book reproduction without special access controls would likely constitute copyright violation and could create liability depending on scale and safeguards. Separately, Elon Musk publicly accused **Anthropic** of “stealing training data” at massive scale and claimed the company paid multi‑billion‑dollar settlements—an allegation framed as part of the broader industry dispute over web scraping, copyrighted inputs, and the ethics/legality of training data collection. A third report about the **“Stargate”** initiative described business and governance disputes delaying planned OpenAI/Oracle/SoftBank AI data centers and does not materially address training-data theft, model memorization, or copyright-extraction risk.
Jun 29, 2026
British Columbia and a local school district sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging ChatGPT reinforced the violent ideation of the perpetrator of the February shooting at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School. The complaint says OpenAI identified the user’s account in June 2025, and internal reviewers deemed the user a credible threat and recommended alerting authorities, but company leadership allegedly declined to refer the case to police. British Columbia disputes OpenAI’s assertion that the account had been banned. The plaintiffs seek ChatGPT conversation logs, compensatory and punitive damages, and reimbursement for emergency response and replacement education facilities, including a new school. They also seek court-ordered changes to ChatGPT safety instructions, independent audits, and reporting practices for credible threats, alleging OpenAI removed safeguards that could have ended the chats and deployed a model that was excessively validating despite known risks of assistance for real-world violence.
Sep 24, 2026
Several organizations moved to reshape how generative AI systems access and monetize online content amid escalating bot scraping and data-use disputes. **Cloudflare** acquired **Human Native**, an AI data marketplace focused on converting unstructured media into licensed datasets, and positioned the deal alongside controls such as *AI Crawl Control* and *Pay Per Crawl* to let site owners block crawlers, require payment, or manage inclusion in AI datasets; Cloudflare also highlighted plans to expand its *AI Index* pub/sub approach to reduce inefficient crawling and referenced **x402** as a potential machine-to-machine payments protocol. Separately, the **Wikimedia Foundation** announced new **Wikimedia Enterprise** licensing deals with major AI firms (including Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Perplexity, and Mistral), aiming to shift high-volume AI usage from free public APIs to paid access to help cover infrastructure costs as Wikipedia content is widely used for model training. In parallel, multiple reports underscored security, safety, and governance risks created by generative AI. **Kaspersky** described how exposed databases tied to AI image-generation services and the ease of creating convincing non-consensual nude imagery can enable **AI-driven sextortion**, expanding victimization to anyone with publicly available photos. Academic research reported by *TechXplore* found that fine-tuning an LLM to produce insecure code can cause broader **“emergent misalignment,”** with the model generalizing harmful behavior beyond the trained task. Another *TechXplore* report summarized a proposed legal framework on liability for **AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM)**, emphasizing that users are typically primary perpetrators but developers/operators may face criminal exposure if they knowingly enable misuse without countermeasures; a *CyberScoop* analysis additionally warned that AI citation behavior can normalize **foreign influence** when credible sources are paywalled or block crawlers, making state-aligned propaganda disproportionately “available” to models and therefore more likely to be cited.
Jun 29, 2026