Perplexity AI users were the proposed class in a lawsuit alleging Perplexity’s AI search app sent their chats to Meta and Google through ad trackers, even in incognito mode. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case on May 1, 2026, before any class was certified, and there is nothing to claim.
Case Dismissed · Allegations Never Tested
This case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on May 1, 2026 and closed on May 6, 2026. The statements below are allegations from the complaint that no court ever tested. Perplexity AI, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google LLC were not found liable, no class was certified, and there is nothing to claim. This page is general information, not legal advice.
What Is the Perplexity AI Lawsuit About?
Perplexity AI — the company behind the popular AI "answer engine" of the same name — faced a proposed privacy class action alleging that it secretly embedded advertising trackers in its app and used them to forward users' private chats to Meta and Google. The case is Doe v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02803, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC were named as co-defendants.According to the complaint, filed on March 31, 2026, Perplexity placed tracking tools directly in its code so that as soon as a user landed on the site, software allegedly began relaying the contents of their conversations — the questions they typed and the answers they received — to third parties for ad targeting. The plaintiff, who filed as John Doe, said he shared sensitive financial and tax information with the chatbot without realizing his conversations were allegedly being routed to advertising platforms. These were allegations the court never ruled on, and the defendants disputed them. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case on May 1, 2026, about a month after filing it.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Trackers Are Alleged?
The complaint alleges that Perplexity embedded several well-known advertising and analytics trackers into its platform, including:• The Meta Pixel and Meta's Conversions API — tools advertisers use to measure and target Facebook and Instagram ads
• Google Ads and Google DoubleClick tags
Plaintiffs allege these tools captured users' prompts and the AI's responses, along with identifiers such as email addresses, IP addresses, and device information, and transmitted them to Meta and Google. The complaint frames this as interception of private communications that users reasonably expected would stay between them and the chatbot. Whether the trackers actually transmitted chat contents as alleged, and whether that violated any law, are questions the case never reached.
The "Incognito Mode" Allegation
A central claim is that Perplexity's private or "incognito" browsing option did not actually keep conversations off the record. The complaint alleges that even when a user selected a private mode, the tracking software continued to send data to Meta and Google. In the plaintiff's telling, the feature people relied on to keep their searches confidential did not stop the underlying data flow. Perplexity has not been found to have done this, and the allegation remains unproven.What Does the Complaint Allege Legally?
The filing asserts that routing private chats to advertisers without consent amounts to unlawful interception and eavesdropping. Among the laws it invokes are:• The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — the state's anti-wiretapping and eavesdropping statute, which generally bars intercepting confidential communications without consent
• The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act / Wiretap Act
• The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)
• California's Unfair Competition Law and the state constitutional right to privacy
In plain terms, plaintiffs argue that every user whose chat was allegedly relayed to Meta or Google without knowing consent may have had a private communication intercepted within the meaning of these laws. None of the defendants has been found to have violated any of them, and all dispute the claims.
Who the Proposed Class Would Have Covered
The proposed class would have been large. It was described as U.S. users whose communications with Perplexity were allegedly transmitted to third parties without consent, covering both guest users and registered account holders. Reporting on the filing notes that Perplexity has roughly 20 million monthly active users in the United States, which gives a sense of the potential scale. No class was ever certified, and the dismissal ended the case before the court considered one.What the Complaint Sought
The complaint sought statutory damages and court orders to stop the alleged practice. Under CIPA, statutory damages can reach $5,000 per violation, and the federal wiretap and electronic-communications statutes provide their own statutory damages — figures that can add up quickly across a large user base. None of those claims was decided, and no money was awarded or paid.How the Companies Have Responded
The defendants disputed the allegations. When the suit was filed, a Perplexity spokesperson said the company had not been served with a lawsuit matching the description and so could not verify its existence or claims. A Meta spokesperson pointed to the company's policies, which it says bar advertisers from sending Meta sensitive information through its tools. Google did not immediately respond to reporters' requests for comment when the suit was filed. A court never weighed these competing accounts.Where the Case Stands: Voluntarily Dismissed
The lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2026, in the San Francisco division of the Northern District of California and assigned case number 3:26-cv-02803. It was reassigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. On April 3 the court denied the plaintiff’s request to proceed under a pseudonym, and the docket now lists the case as Noel v. Perplexity AI, Inc.On May 1, 2026, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), and the court closed the case on May 6. The notice does not give a reason. No class was certified and there is no settlement. Because no class was certified, the dismissal did not decide or release any other user’s claims, and “without prejudice” means the claims could be refiled. As of September 24, 2026, no refiled case against Perplexity over these trackers has been found.
The case was part of a broader wave of AI-and-privacy litigation testing whether long-standing wiretap and eavesdropping laws apply to modern AI products. It sat alongside the Google Gemini Gmail privacy class action and the consolidated Otter.ai AI-notetaker wiretap class action, both of which raise similar questions. A nearly identical theory was briefly filed against OpenAI's ChatGPT in May 2026 before the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it — see OCA's OpenAI ChatGPT privacy class action page. This page will be updated if the claims are refiled.
What Should You Do Now?
There is nothing to file — the case was dismissed, and no settlement or claim form exists. If you are concerned about how an AI app handles your conversations, you can review the privacy and tracking controls in your browser and on your accounts, and limit ad tracking at the device level. You can also keep your own notes about your use of the service. If you want legal advice, consult a privacy attorney licensed in your state; you can find one through your state bar association's lawyer referral service. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice or process claims.For related coverage, see our reporting on the $68M Google Assistant privacy settlement and the Google Incognito private-browsing privacy case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Perplexity AI privacy lawsuit dismissed?
Yes. The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) on May 1, 2026, and the court closed the case on May 6, 2026. No class was certified and the court never decided whether the allegations were true. A dismissal without prejudice means the claims could be brought again, but no refiled case has been found.
What is the Perplexity AI privacy lawsuit about?
The proposed class action, filed as Doe v. Perplexity AI, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) and voluntarily dismissed on May 1, 2026, alleged Perplexity embedded advertising trackers — including the Meta Pixel, Meta's Conversions API, Google Ads and Google DoubleClick — in its AI search app, and that those trackers forwarded users' chat prompts and responses, along with identifiers like email and IP addresses, to Meta and Google without consent. Meta Platforms and Google were also named as defendants. These were unproven allegations; Perplexity has said it had not been served and could not verify the claims, and Meta has pointed to its policies barring advertisers from sending sensitive data.
Does this affect Perplexity's incognito mode?
The complaint alleges that Perplexity's incognito feature did not stop the tracking and that data was sent to Meta and Google even when a user chose a private mode. That is an allegation the court has not ruled on. If you are concerned, you can review the privacy and tracking controls in your browser and on your Perplexity account, and limit ad tracking at the device or browser level.
Is there a Perplexity settlement or claim form yet?
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed on May 1, 2026, before any class was certified. There is no settlement, no claim form and nothing to file. Because no class was certified, the dismissal did not resolve any other Perplexity user’s claims.
Who could be covered by the Perplexity class action?
The complaint proposed a class of U.S. users whose communications with Perplexity were allegedly transmitted to third parties without consent. No class was ever certified, and the case was dismissed on May 1, 2026, so no one is covered by it now.
What are the plaintiffs seeking?
The complaint sought statutory damages and court orders to stop the alleged practice, invoking laws including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which allows statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, and the federal wiretap and electronic-communications statutes. The plaintiff dismissed the case before any of those claims was decided, so no money was awarded.
Sources
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — docket in Noel v. Perplexity AI, Inc. (filed as Doe v. Perplexity AI, Inc.), No. 3:26-cv-02803, including the April 3, 2026 order on the pseudonym motion, the May 1, 2026 notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 33) and the May 6, 2026 termination• Doe v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02803 (N.D. Cal.) — docket via Justia
• Insurance Journal — coverage of the filing (Apr. 2, 2026)
• MediaPost / Local News Matters — reporting on the complaint and company responses
