Google Named in Perplexity Lawsuit — Court Filing Says Private Chats Were Shared
A class action complaint alleges Perplexity routed private user conversations to google and Meta, a claim the company says it cannot verify and that recent court orders have already begun to limit Perplexity’s browser agent.
What does the complaint in Doe v. Perplexity AI Inc. allege?
Verified facts: The complaint filed as Doe v. Perplexity AI Inc., 3: 26-cv-02803, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco) asserts that Perplexity shared users’ personal information with Meta and Google in ways that violate California privacy laws. The filing states a Utah man identified as John Doe provided personal details about taxes, investments and family finances to the AI chatbot while believing those conversations were private. The complaint further alleges Perplexity integrated “undetectable” tracking software into its search code that automatically sends users’ conversations to Meta, Google and other third parties.
How did Google receive user data and what evidence does the filing cite?
Verified facts: The filing alleges automatic transfers of conversation data to third parties, naming Google and Meta among recipients. The complaint is the primary source for the claim that Perplexity’s software transmitted user conversations beyond the chat session. The complaint also frames those transmissions as the basis for statutory claims under state and federal computer privacy and fraud laws.
How has Perplexity responded and what other court actions touch the company?
Verified facts: Jesse Dwyer, chief communications officer at Perplexity, wrote that the company has not been served with any lawsuit matching the complaint’s description and therefore is unable to verify the allegations. Separately, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction preventing Perplexity from using its Comet browser AI agent to enter password-protected areas of another company’s website and make purchases on users’ behalf. The earlier litigation alleged Perplexity’s agent behaved like a normal Google Chrome browser session and was not transparent about that behavior; the separate complaint also challenged an e-commerce feature called “Buy with Pro” for scraping product listings without authorization.
Analysis: Taken together, the court filing and recent injunction portray a company balancing rapid product development against rising litigation over data handling and automated web interactions. The Doe filing links alleged technical behavior—undetectable tracking in search engine code—to direct statutory claims, while Perplexity’s communications emphasize an absence of service and an inability to verify the complaint’s assertions. The preliminary injunction against the Comet agent demonstrates that at least one court has found sufficient concern about the agent’s behavior to impose immediate limits.
Verified facts versus analysis: The presence of a named federal case and the quote from Jesse Dwyer are verifiable elements from court filings and company communications. The interpretation that these elements indicate legal and operational strain for Perplexity is an informed analysis based strictly on the documented filings and the cited injunction.
Accountability and next steps: The complaint requests relief through the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California, where the named filing was lodged. The filing places Perplexity, Meta and Google at the center of statutory privacy claims and asks the court to consider whether the alleged technical practices breached legal protections for user conversations. Perplexity’s statement that it has not been served raises a procedural question the court must resolve before merits briefing proceeds; the separate preliminary injunction shows the court is already intervening where automated agents are active on third-party sites.
Public interest note: Regulators and courts will determine whether the practices described in Doe v. Perplexity AI Inc. amount to actionable privacy violations, and whether existing safeguards are adequate to prevent automated transmission of private chats to third parties, including google.
