Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. et al. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
- Cave
- 1:25-cv-07546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Perplexity AI, Judge Cave granted Perplexity’s request to seal transcript portions containing confidential technical information.
Perplexity AI, Inc., whose requested transcript redactions were approved; the original transcript will be sealed while a redacted version remains publicly viewable.
What happened
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. et al. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. concerns Perplexity’s request to seal parts of a hearing transcript. Perplexity said the transcript disclosed confidential information about its computer code and other protected business and technical information.
Perplexity submitted a redacted version of the transcript and asked the court to protect information designated under the case’s protective order and source-code procedures. It argued that disclosure could harm its competitive interests and the security of its technology.
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the proposed redactions and granted the sealing request. She ordered the original transcript sealed and directed that a redacted version be filed for public viewing.
The detailed version
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. et al. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-07546
- Cave
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Perplexity AI, Inc. submitted a letter motion asking the court to seal portions of the transcript of proceedings held on July 23, 2026. The transcript contained information Perplexity had designated as “Highly Confidential,” “Highly Confidential — Inspection Data,” and “Highly Confidential — Source Code Data” under the case’s protective order and source-code protocol.
Perplexity’s letter said the transcript included sensitive, nonpublic information about the structure, format, and contents of its confidential, proprietary, and trade-secret computer code. Perplexity also argued that disclosure could seriously harm its competitive interests and the security of its technological systems. It submitted a version of the transcript with the proposed redactions.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that the information had been designated as highly confidential under the protective order and source-code protocol. It also relied on the principle that documents containing proprietary and sensitive business information are routinely sealed in the Southern District of New York. The opinion further noted that the public-access presumption is generally lower for information presented in connection with discovery disputes.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved Perplexity’s proposed redactions and granted the sealing request. The court ordered the transcript at Docket No. 90 placed under seal. It directed the transcriber to apply the approved redactions and docket the redacted version as the publicly viewable transcript. The clerk was directed to seal the original transcript and close Docket No. 104.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.