Perplexity faces class action lawsuit over alleged data sharing with Google and Meta

Perplexity's "Incognito Mode" is a "sham," lawsuit says

Perplexity's AI search engine encourages users to go deeper with their prompts by engaging in chat sessions that a lawsuit has alleged are often shared in their entirety with Google and Meta without users' knowledge or consent. "This happened to every user regardless of whether or not they signed up for a Perplexity account," the lawsuit alleged, while stressing that "enormous volumes of sensitive information from both subscribed and non-subscribed users" are shared. Using developer tools, the lawsuit found that opening prompts are always shared, as are any follow-up questions the search engine asks that a user clicks on. Privacy concerns are seemingly worse for non-subscribed users, the complaint alleged. Their initial prompts are shared with "a URL through which the entire conversation may be accessed by third parties like Meta and Google." Disturbingly, the lawsuit alleged, chats are also shared with personally identifiable information (PII), even when users who want to stay anonymous opt to use Perplexity's "Incognito Mode." That mode, the lawsuit charged, is a "sham." "'Incognito' mode does nothing to protect users from having their conversations shared with Meta and Google," the complaint said. "Even paid users who turned on the 'Incognito' feature still had their conversations shared with Meta and Google, along with their email addresses and other identifiers that allowed Meta and Google to personally identify them." Financial, health info allegedly shared The "extreme" privacy complaints arose in a proposed class action filed Tuesday by an anonymous Perplexity user, John Doe. In his complaint, he likened ad trackers to "browser-based wiretap technology" that lets Google and Meta snoop on private Perplexity chat logs. In violation of state and federal laws, he alleged, the AI firm never disclosed to users that it secretly uses tech giants' ad trackers. His lawsuit targets all three companies, accusing them of putting profits over users' privacy rights by seizing sensitive data that users did not realize would be shared. For Doe, he was "dismayed" to learn that complete and partial transcripts of chats discussing his family's financial data were seemingly shared with Google and Meta, allegedly alongside PII. He relies on Perplexity to help manage his taxes, get legal advice, and make investment decisions, his complaint said. Without an injunction blocking Perplexity's allegedly ongoing privacy harms, he will be blocked from using his preferred search engine, he complained. Other users in the proposed class most likely turned to Perplexity when researching other sensitive topics, the lawsuit alleged. According to the lawsuit, the companies designed ad trackers to operate "surreptitiously" so that they could allegedly "exploit this sensitive data for their own benefit, including targeting individuals with advertising and reselling their sensitive data to additional third parties." Perhaps most troublingly, people frequently use such AI systems to research health and medical information, particularly when consulting with a human might be embarrassing or upsetting. Supposedly capitalizing on users' tendency to overshare with AI systems, Perplexity is seemingly trained to request that users upload sensitive records during chat sessions, the complaint said. That includes information that, if shared with Google and Meta, could result in users suddenly being targeted with advertisements that they "may find overwhelming, disturbing, or, in many instances, physically deleterious," the complaint said. For example, Perplexity responds to a basic prompt like "What is the best treatment for liver cancer?" by volunteering that "I can help you interpret a specific scan report, biopsy result, or proposed treatment plan if you share more details," the complaint noted. Among invasive trackers embedded in Perplexity's AI search engine are the Facebook Meta Pixel, Google Ads, and Google Double Click, as well as possibly a technology that Meta calls "Conversions API," the lawsuit said. Meta allegedly recommends that partners use that last technology in combination with the Meta Pixel, because it supposedly serves as a "workaround" that prevents "savvy users" from blocking Pixel tracking, his complaint said. Notably, Meta has been hit with several privacy lawsuits opposing that tech, with some settlements, while Congress has dinged some former partners who used trackers from Google and Meta. Class action spans three years of chats As AI tools like Perplexity's have become ubiquitous, users have good reason to be concerned that their prompts and chats may be leaked. ChatGPT logs were recently shared with news organizations in a major copyright litigation and leaked in Google searches and analytics tools. If users knew about Perplexity's ad trackers sharing transcripts of chats, they wouldn't use Perplexity's search engine in the same way, Doe's lawsuit alleged. "No reasonable person would have expected that Perplexity would share complete transcripts of their conversations with Perplexity's AI Machine with companies like Meta and Google," the complaint said. "But that is what Perplexity did." The proposed class covers certain Perplexity users nationwide whose chats were allegedly shared with Google and Meta between December 7, 2022, and February 4, 2026. There is also a separate subclass for California users pursuing additional claims. Neither class nor the subclass covers paid "Perplexity Pro" and "Perplexity Max" subscribers, because Doe never accessed those tiers of services and cannot adequately represent their interests, the lawsuit noted. Google, Meta, and Perplexity could face substantial fines in a loss, with perhaps millions of chat logs involved and potential statutory damages that could exceed $5,000 per violation. Doe also seeks punitive fines as well as disgorgement for any unjust enrichment, as the companies allegedly used the sensitive information to improve their products, their own marketing, and their targeted advertising. Perplexity hides privacy policy In addition to allegedly violating laws, companies are accused of infringing their own privacy policies and terms of use by collecting and sharing sensitive data. Specifically, Google and Meta are accused of failing to enforce policies prohibiting the disclosure of confidential or sensitive information through the use of their trackers. Those policies only exist to create "plausible deniability" to help the tech giants dodge lawsuits, the complaint alleged. The complaint noted that Perplexity never asks users to agree to its privacy policy, and there is no link to the privacy policy on the search engine's homepage. That's different from popular search engines like Google (where the privacy policy is in the footer) and Bing (which links its policy in a menu). Perplexity users would have to rely on a search engine to find the policy, the complaint said, and even then, there would seemingly be no way to detect the invasive ad tracking. In the section of its privacy policy that discusses tracking, Perplexity does not mention specific trackers. Instead, it warns users that it does not allow "do not block signals" and advises that attempts to block trackers could affect services. "Perplexity's failure to inform its users that their personal information has been disclosed to Meta and Google or to take any steps to halt the continued disclosure of users' information is malicious, oppressive, and in reckless disregard" of users' rights, the lawsuit alleged. Perplexity's privacy policy does emphasize that the company does not "'sell' or 'share' sensitive personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising." Ars could not immediately reach Perplexity or Meta for comment. Google's spokesperson provided Ars with a statement that suggested it wasn't responsible for Perplexity's alleged failure to properly disclose how chats could be shared. "Businesses manage the data they collect and are responsible for informing users about it," Google's spokesperson said. "By default, data sent to Google Analytics for measurement does not identify individuals, we have strict policies against advertising based on sensitive information, and we don't sell personal information." Doe is hoping a jury will find that Perplexity's ad trackers are unlawful and order injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement, as well as a range of damages. Without an injunction, the only remedy Perplexity users will have is allegedly paying costly services to prevent disclosures of "their most sensitive and personal information," his lawsuit claimed. "Nothing on Perplexity's website warns users that their conversations with its AI Machine will be shared with Meta and Google," Doe alleged. "Much less does Perplexity warn subscribed users that its 'Incognito Mode' does not function to protect users' private conversations from disclosure to companies like Meta and Google."

Lawsuit accuses Perplexity of sharing conversations with Meta and Google.

A proposed class action lawsuit claims Perplexity "effectively planted a bug" on users' computers by embedding trackers from Meta and Google inside its AI search engine, as reported earlier by Ars Technica. It also alleges that Perplexity's incognito mode "does nothing" to protect user privacy: Even paid users who turned on the "Incognito" feature still had their conversations shared with Meta and Google, along with their email addresses and other identifiers that allowed Meta and Google to personally identify them.

Use Perplexity? Lawsuit Accuses It of Sharing Personal Data With Google and Meta Without Permission

The lawsuit claims that Perplexity incorporated ad trackers such as Facebook Meta Pixel, Google Ads, and Google DoubleClick into its code, which would share information with Meta and Google without consent. AI search engine Perplexity has been hit with a new lawsuit that claims it shared users' data with Google and Meta without their permission, which are also named in the complaint. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week in federal court in San Francisco, claims that the tool incorporated ad trackers such as Facebook Meta Pixel, Google Ads, and Google DoubleClick into its code. These ad trackers would allegedly then gather information from website visitors and forward that information to Meta, Google, and other third parties, which would exploit that data for commercial purposes. The court document, spotted by Ars Technica, highlights how Perplexity would encourage users to engage with its AI in an interactive dialogue. For example, it might ask a user seeking treatment for liver cancer a series of suggested questions. The tech giants could then use this data to target the cancer-suffering user with ads for alternative treatments or nearby clinics. The plaintiff, John Doe, claims that his private conversations, in which he asked Perplexity for advice on things like stock investments and retirement fund planning, were shared with Meta and Google. The plaintiff is seeking damages of up to $5,000 per violation, and a ruling to stop Perplexity from engaging further in this type of unauthorized sharing of personal data. The complaint claimed that users' personal data was shared even when they opted for Perplexity's "Incognito" mode, and regardless of whether they registered for a Perplexity account. The complaint argues that the actions of Perplexity, Meta, and Google "constitute an extreme invasion" of consumers' rights to privacy and violate both federal and California law. "Users of interactive conversation platforms like Perplexity's AI Machine simply do not anticipate that their confidential communications to an unauthorized third party -- let alone Meta, which has a sordid history of privacy violations in pursuit of ever-increasing advertising revenue -- occur without consumers' informed consent," read the challenge. Perplexity and Meta have yet to officially comment on the news. However, Google told Ars Technica that "Businesses manage the data they collect and are responsible for informing users about it. "By default, data sent to Google Analytics for measurement does not identify individuals, we have strict policies against advertising based on sensitive information, and we don't sell personal information," Google's spokesperson added. The news comes after a judge ruled against Perplexity in a ruling last month and ordered it to block its AI agents from placing orders on Amazon without permission, though the AI firm intends to fight the decision.

Perplexity AI Machine Accused of Sharing Data With Meta, Google

Perplexity AI Inc. was accused in a lawsuit of surreptitiously sharing the personal information of its users with Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google in violation of California privacy laws. As soon as users log into Perplexity's home page, trackers are downloaded onto their devices, giving Meta and Google full access to the conversations between them and Perplexity's AI Machine search engine, according to the proposed class-action complaint filed Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco. This allows Meta and Google "to exploit this sensitive date for their own benefit, including targeting individuals with advertising and reselling their sensitive data to additional third parties," according to the complaint. Users' personal data is shared even when they sign up for Perplexity's "Incognito" mode, according to the complaint. The suit was filed on behalf of an Utah man, identified only as John Doe, who seeks to represent a class of Perplexity users. According to the suit, the man shared information about his family's finances, his tax obligations, his investment portfolio and strategies with Perplexity's chatbot. Perplexity embedded "undetectable" tracking software into the search engine's code that automatically transmits users' conversations to Meta, Google and other third parties, according to the complaint. The lawsuit also targets Meta and Google, accusing them of violating federal and state computer privacy and fraud laws. A Meta spokesperson pointed to a Facebook help page which says it's against the tech giant's rules for advertisers to send the company sensitive information. "We have not been served any lawsuit that matches this description so we are unable to verify its existence or claims," said Jesse Dwyer, a Perplexity spokesperson. Representatives of Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is Doe v. Perplexity AI Inc., 3:26-cv-02803, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Perplexity 'Incognito' chats might not be so private, lawsuit claims

It's early days in this case, but penalties could be steep at $5,000 or more per violation. Perplexity and other tech companies are in hot water for allegedly violating users' privacy. A proposed class action filed by an anonymous Perplexity user this week accuses the AI firm of sharing sensitive information with both Google and Meta without user consent, even information entered into Perplexity's ostensibly privacy-focused Incognito Mode. As Ars Technica reports, the suit accuses Perplexity of using ad trackers from both Google and Meta without disclosing those integrations to users, comparing the low-profile trackers to wiretaps. User information gathered from Perplexity interactions is shared with both other companies, the complaint alleges, in order to target ads based on that info. The suit says that initial prompts entered into Perplexity by users signed into Perplexity accounts are always fed into Google's and Meta's ad platforms, and so are any reply options the user clicks on throughout the interaction. In the case of users who aren't signed in, "the entire conversation may be accessed by third parties like Meta and Google." Data shared with Google and Meta by Perplexity allegedly includes personally identifiable information, regardless of whether that information was entered into Perplexity's Incognito Mode (which the suit calls a "sham"). In addition to accusing Perplexity of sharing identifiable information with third parties, the suit also says that Perplexity doesn't require users to agree to its privacy policy before using its service, and that finding that policy at all is rather difficult: it's not linked to from the Perplexity web app. The anonymous complainant says that he used Perplexity for a variety of sensitive purposes, including to obtain financial and legal advice. Google and Meta are also targeted in the suit, which accuses the companies of neglecting to enforce their own policies that may have prevented their trackers from being deployed in this way. The proposed class that could eventually be eligible for compensation would include some Perplexity users in the US whose chats were shared with Google and Meta between late 2022 and early 2026. Damages in the suit could be steep, Ars reports, potentially exceeding $5,000 per each individual violation, of which there may be millions.

Perplexity is being sued for allegedly sharing user data with Meta and Google -- here's what we know so far

Perplexity's 'incognito mode' is a sham, lawsuit alleges: Is your private AI data leaking to Google? It's becoming a common headline: another week, another massive lawsuit against an AI giant. But the latest legal battle facing Perplexity AI hits closer to home for anyone who values their privacy. A new proposed class-action lawsuit, filed by a user in Utah, claims that Perplexity hasn't just been "tracking" users -- it's been surreptitiously funneling their most intimate conversations directly to Meta and Alphabet's Google. The 'incognito' illusion The most damning allegation in the suit? That Perplexity's Incognito mode -- the feature users trust to keep their searches off the record -- doesn't actually stop the data flow. According to the complaint, as soon as a user lands on Perplexity's homepage, "undetectable" tracking software is downloaded to their device. This allows Meta and Google to "intercept" full transcripts of AI conversations, even when the user has explicitly opted for privacy. For the Utah plaintiff (identified as John Doe), this allegedly included sensitive details about his family finances, tax obligations and personal investment strategies. Alleged misuse of sensitive user information The anonymous plaintiff, identified as "John Doe," outlines his claims in a 140-page complaint, alleging that hidden trackers were used to send full transcripts of user conversations to Meta and Google. According to the filing, this data sharing allegedly occurred even when Perplexity's "Incognito" mode was enabled. All three companies are accused of violating privacy laws, including California's "wiretapping" laws. "No reasonable person would have expected that Perplexity would share complete transcripts of their conversations ... with companies like Meta and Google," the plaintiff states in the complaint. "The intimate health and financial information that users regularly share with Perplexity is some of the most private information about a user." The plaintiff says he used Perplexity to search topics related to taxes, family finances, and personal investments, believing those interactions were private. He later claims he discovered that partial transcripts of those conversations were allegedly shared with Meta and Google each time he used the platform. The complaint also alleges that Perplexity shared users' prompt history and email addresses with Meta and Google when they signed up for a free account. In one example cited, a user asking, "What is the best treatment for liver cancer?" would have had the full prompt transmitted via a URL intercepted in the browser and sent to Meta and Google, according to the filing. The lawsuit argues that this type of data sharing could expose users to highly targeted advertising that may feel "overwhelming, disturbing, or, in many instances, physically deleterious." According to reports, Perplexity denies the claims. Jesse Dwyer, the company's chief communications officer, said the company has not been served with any lawsuit matching this description and cannot verify the allegations. Bottom line Perplexity is facing mounting legal scrutiny -- and this isn't the first time. The company was recently hit with a temporary injunction tied to its Comet AI tool, which a judge ruled could no longer scrape certain websites without permission. Amazon argued that Perplexity's Comet browser accessed its site without authorization, presenting evidence that convinced the court to act. Now, with another lawsuit emerging, the controversy could make users think twice about what they share with Perplexity's chatbot -- and other AI tools they've come to trust. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds.

Perplexity's privacy lawsuit bombshells will make you sweat about using the AI tool

Perplexity, one of the fastest-growing AI search tools right now, is suddenly facing some serious heat. And this time, it's not about accuracy or hallucinations. A fresh lawsuit is raising uncomfortable questions about what actually happens to user data behind the scenes, especially when people assume their chats are private. And if the allegations hold any weight, this could be one of those moments that prompts many users to rethink how casually they share information with AI tools. Is Perplexity's "incognito mode" actually private? According to a newly filed class-action lawsuit by an anonymous Perplexity user, John Doe, not quite. The complaint alleges that Perplexity's so-called incognito mode is essentially a "sham" that fails to protect user data as most people would expect. The lawsuit claims that user conversations, including potentially sensitive topics like financial advice, health concerns, or legal queries, were shared with third parties like Google and Meta. And as reported by Ars Technica, this happened even when users explicitly chose incognito mode, which is supposed to limit tracking and data collection. What's more concerning is the kind of data allegedly involved. Reports suggest that information such as IP addresses, email IDs, geolocation data, and even full chat transcripts may have been passed along for ad targeting purposes. The lawsuit also accuses Perplexity of embedding tracking tools similar to those used in online advertising, without clearly informing users. In some cases, it even claims that entire conversations could be accessed via publicly reachable links. Why this lawsuit could change how we trust AI This goes beyond one app as AI tools feel personal, which makes oversharing easy. The lawsuit also claims years of chats were shared with ad giants, and that Perplexity doesn't clearly surface its privacy policy like rivals do. Recommended Videos If true, it could force stricter transparency across AI platforms. For now, they're just allegations, but enough to make that next AI prompt feel a little less casual.

Is Your AI Chatbot Snitching? A New Lawsuit Alleges This Company Shared Data With Tech Giants

Perplexity isn't just answering your questions, it's spying on you -- at least according to a new class-action lawsuit. Filed in California, the lawsuit alleges that Perplexity collected data from user conversations with the AI-powered browser, then shared it with Meta and Google for advertising purposes -- even when incognito mode was activated. On behalf of an anonymous man from Utah and a class of similar users, the complaint alleges Perplexity shared IP addresses, email addresses, geolocation, and -- in some cases -- entire transcripts of conversations on a range of topics including legal and tax advice, health issues, and investing. "No reasonable person would have expected that Perplexity would share complete transcripts of their conversations with Perplexity's AI Machine with companies like Meta and Google. But that is what Perplexity did," the lawsuit reads.

Perplexity AI Sued Over 'Undetectable' Tracking Technology

Hidden Tracking Claims Put Perplexity AI Under Fire as Users Question How Safe Their Conversations Really Are! A fresh privacy scare has put Perplexity AI in the spotlight. The company is facing a lawsuit that claims it used hidden tracking tools to collect and share user data without permission. The complaint says private conversations may have been sent to other tech companies in the background. The news has quickly raised concern among users and experts. Many people use AI tools to ask personal questions, plan finances, or solve work problems. They expect those conversations to stay private. When reports suggest otherwise, trust becomes shaky. Legal watchers say this case could become a turning point. It may decide how much responsibility AI companies have when handling user data.