Perplexity AI Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Sharing in Incognito Mode
Key Points
- Anonymous user John Doe files class‑action suit against Perplexity AI.
- Lawsuit alleges incognito mode does not block data collection.
- User data reportedly shared with Google, Meta for ad targeting.
- Claims include transmission of IP addresses, email IDs, geolocation, and full chat logs.
- Some conversations allegedly exposed via public links.
- Perplexity accused of embedding undisclosed tracking scripts.
- No public comment from Perplexity as of filing.
- Case could force tighter privacy disclosures for AI services.
A class-action suit filed by an anonymous user, identified as John Doe, accuses Perplexity, the fast‑growing AI search platform, of breaching privacy promises. The complaint alleges that the company’s incognito feature fails to shield user conversations, instead funneling chat transcripts, IP addresses, email identifiers and location data to advertising partners such as Google and Meta. If the allegations prove true, the case could force tighter transparency standards across AI‑driven services.
Perplexity, one of the most rapidly adopted AI‑powered search tools, now faces a legal challenge that could reshape how the industry handles user privacy. An anonymous plaintiff, filing under the name John Doe, lodged a class‑action lawsuit claiming the company’s incognito mode is a "sham" that does not prevent data collection.
The complaint contends that, despite users explicitly selecting incognito to limit tracking, Perplexity continued to transmit detailed user information—including IP addresses, email identifiers, geolocation data and full chat transcripts—to third‑party advertising networks. The lawsuit identifies Google and Meta as primary recipients of this data, suggesting the information was repurposed for ad‑targeting purposes.
According to the filing, the breach extends beyond passive metadata. In several instances, the plaintiff alleges that entire conversation histories were accessible through publicly reachable links, effectively exposing private queries about finance, health and legal matters. The suit also accuses Perplexity of embedding tracking scripts akin to those used in conventional online advertising, without providing clear notice to users.
Perplexity’s defenders have not yet responded publicly. The company’s privacy policy, which the lawsuit claims is less visible than those of competing AI services, allegedly omits explicit language about data sharing in incognito mode. If the court finds the allegations credible, the decision could compel Perplexity and similar platforms to revamp their privacy disclosures and perhaps limit the flow of user‑generated content to external advertisers.
Legal experts note that the case arrives at a time when regulators worldwide are scrutinizing AI tools for transparency and data protection. While the lawsuit remains an allegation at this stage, its potential impact on user trust and industry practices is already prompting discussion among privacy advocates and AI developers alike.