Track 1 platform and get the weekly governance digest. No credit card required.
This page describes what the document states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability may vary by jurisdiction. Methodology
This is Perplexity AI's Acceptable Use Policy, which lists what you are and are not allowed to do when using Perplexity's AI search and answer tools. The policy prohibits a wide range of activities including generating illegal content, producing content that sexualizes minors, creating disinformation or deceptive AI-generated content, and using the platform to build competing AI products. If you violate this policy, Perplexity may suspend or terminate your access to the service, and the policy does not describe a formal appeals process.
This document is Perplexity AI's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which governs permissible and prohibited uses of the Perplexity AI platform and services, operating as a companion to the company's Terms of Service. The policy states that users must not use the services to generate illegal content, facilitate violence or terrorism, produce child sexual abuse material, engage in unauthorized data collection or surveillance, spread disinformation, infringe intellectual property rights, or circumvent safety measures built into the platform. Notably, the AUP addresses AI-specific misuse categories including the prohibition on generating content designed to deceive others about its AI origin and restrictions on using the service to develop competing AI systems, provisions that are operationally distinct in the AI services context and whose enforceability may depend on jurisdiction and applicable law. The policy engages frameworks including the FTC Act (unfair or deceptive practices), COPPA (given prohibitions on services directed at children), the EU AI Act and Digital Services Act (for prohibited AI outputs and illegal content), and CSAM laws including PROTECT Act; the global scope of the AUP creates compliance complexity where regulatory obligations vary materially by jurisdiction. The absence of explicit enforcement procedures, appeals mechanisms, or defined timelines for account actions represents a notable gap for compliance teams evaluating due process and transparency obligations under EU and state-level frameworks.
Institutional analysis available with Professional
Regulatory exposure by statute, material risk assessment, vendor due diligence action items, and enforcement precedent. Available on Professional.
Start Professional free trialMonitoring
Perplexity AI has updated this document before.
Watcher includes same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.
Professional Governance Intelligence
Need provision-level monitoring and regulatory mapping?
Professional includes governance timelines, compliance memos, audit-ready analysis, and full provision tracking.
Start Professional free trialCross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Prohibition on Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Governance Monitoring
Structured alerts for policy changes, governance events, and provision updates across 318+ platforms.