8 Total
3 High severity
5 Medium severity
0 Low severity
Summary

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.

Technical / Legal Breakdown

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

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 trial
High — 3 provisions
Medium — 5 provisions

Monitoring

Perplexity AI has updated this document before.

Watcher includes same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.

Start Watcher free trial Or create a free account →

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 trial

Cross-platform context

See how other platforms handle Prohibition on Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and similar clauses.

Compare across platforms →

Mapped Governance Frameworks

California AB 2013 AI Training Data Transparency
US-CA
View official text ↗
DMCA
United States Federal
View official text ↗
DSA
European Union
View official text ↗
Archival ProvenanceSource & Archival Record
Last Captured May 11, 2026 10:30 UTC
Capture Method Automated scheduled archival capture
Document ID CA-D-000760
Version ID CA-V-002392
SHA-256 f208a5a0d5733de2076372db9f9bff6b3c29a827e246f8bbbc83eeddafc91ee6
✓ Snapshot stored ✓ Text extracted ✓ Change verified ✓ Hash verified

Governance Monitoring

Monitor governance changes across the platforms you rely on.

Structured alerts for policy changes, governance events, and provision updates across 318+ platforms.

Create free account Compare plans