1. What the document is: Perplexity's conduct policy, governing lawful, safe, and responsible use of its AI-powered search/answer service.

What this wiki found — complete, every page

AI trainingRoyalty-freeSublicensablePerpetual / irrevocableTransferableDerivative works

Presence facts, not verdicts — each flagged term links to its definition and the exact clause on this page. Absence of a badge means the term isn't currently flagged here, not that the page is risk-free.

Perplexity – Acceptable Use Policy

Dataset: GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) — 11 AI services, 2025–present

GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) is this wiki’s Generative-AI dataset: raw policy snapshots captured by the Open Terms Archive genai-eu project across 11 GenAI providers (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, DeepSeek, Google Generative AI Services, Le Chat, Llama API, Meta AI, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Qwen Chat, xAI). Unlike PGAv2, GenGA has no pre-tagged risk scores — all risk scoring and keyword tagging on these pages is LLM-assigned by direct reading, spanning 2025–present.

Note: This page contains documented policy clauses. Risk assessment is qualitative and context-dependent. For analysis of patterns across platforms, see:

Source: sources/GenGA/Perplexity/Acceptable Use Policy/ (raw Markdown captures, Open Terms Archive genai-eu dataset — no pre-tagged JSONL exists for this source) Last updated: 2025-11-11 (only capture in this dataset; document’s own “Last updated: July 8th, 2025”)

Note on methodology: No pre-computed risk_score/keyword fields exist for this source. Keyword tags and clause analysis on this page are LLM-assigned, using the same rubric/vocabulary as the PGAv2 pages plus new GenAI-specific tags (ai disclosure, competing model ban, gdpr). Treat as first-pass analysis, not externally verified ground truth. This wiki’s risk-scoring system was retired project-wide on 2026-06-21 (see methodology.md §4) — no page, GenGA included, computes or displays a numeric risk score.

Overview

1. What the document is: Perplexity’s conduct policy, governing lawful, safe, and responsible use of its AI-powered search/answer service.

2. Input rights: Not addressed. This document governs conduct, not data licensing.

3. Output restrictions: You may not “create content that you subsequently claim was created solely by humans, or otherwise misrepresent the provenance of information or content,” and may not “remove watermarks, metadata or other indicia intended to identify outputs as artificially generated.”

4. Non-explicit predatory clauses: A competing-model/competing-service ban: you may not “create or make available any products or services competitive with, similar to, or that would otherwise be a substitute for the Services (or the third-party AI models used in the Services), except with Perplexity’s express prior written permission.” This goes beyond a pure training-data restriction — it bans competitive products generally. A separate clause bans attempts to “decompile, distill, jailbreak… or otherwise attempt to discover the source code, model weights or other algorithmic parameters.”

5. Regulatory references: Major finding — the dataset’s second explicit, named EU AI Act citation (after Le Chat’s, which was later removed and never reinstated). Section 2.6 explicitly bans “any activity or practice that is prohibited or considered ‘high risk’ under the European Union’s AI Act,” with a direct hyperlink to the regulation’s EUR-Lex text (CELEX:32024R1689). This is also the clearest incorporation-by-reference approach to AI Act compliance in this dataset — rather than itemizing the prohibited-practices list internally, as Meta AI and Microsoft Copilot do without ever naming the Act, Perplexity names the Act directly and defers to its text.

6. Regional variation: None found. The AI Act reference applies as a global conduct rule in this document, not one scoped only to EU users.

7. Key risk to users: Low overall — this is a comparatively protective, narrowly-scoped conduct policy. The main risk is the broad competing-service ban, which (like Microsoft Copilot’s) could sweep in legitimate, non-infringing competitive products.

Flagged Keywords & Risks (LLM-assigned)

ai disclosure — Perplexity bans providing “chatbot services without disclosing to end users that they are interacting with AI (unless it is obvious from the context),” plus removing watermarks. Why it matters: this combines two transparency mechanisms — textual disclosure and technical watermarking — similar in kind to Microsoft Copilot’s content-credentials clause.
competing model ban — “Create or make available any products or services competitive with, similar to, or that would otherwise be a substitute for the Services (or the third-party AI models used in the Services), except with Perplexity’s express prior written permission.” Why it matters: this is broader than a training-specific ban — it covers competitive products generally, not just training activity.
gdpr (EU AI Act, not GDPR) — A direct, named citation of the EU AI Act, linked to its EUR-Lex text. Why it matters: this is the dataset’s second explicit AI Act citation (after Le Chat’s, since removed). It’s flagged here for cross-reference even though it isn’t actually a GDPR citation — tracked informally pending a possible dedicated eu_ai_act concept page if a third instance turns up.

Regulatory & Research Context

Perplexity was not among the providers studied by Davidson et al. (2026) or Pandit et al. (2026), but Davidson et al.’s broader concern with regulatory clarity in LLM Terms applies by analogy: this page’s “major finding” — Perplexity’s direct, named citation of the EU AI Act (CELEX:32024R1689) via incorporation-by-reference — is a notable counter-example to the unattributed AI-Act-mirroring pattern Davidson et al.’s framework would flag elsewhere in this dataset, since it gives users an explicit regulatory anchor rather than leaving the prohibited-practices list unsourced. Edwards et al. (2025) frame such transparency moves cautiously, however, noting that providers often “position themselves as neutral intermediaries” even while retaining broad discretionary bans, such as this document’s competing model ban, which sweeps in “products or services competitive with, similar to, or that would otherwise be a substitute for the Services” generally, not just training activity.

Changes Summary

Date	What changed
2025-11-11	Baseline and only version captured in this dataset (“Last updated: July 8th, 2025” per the document’s own header).

Version History

2025-11-11

Explicit AI clause: YES
Non-explicit predatory: YES
Flagged keywords: ai disclosure, competing model ban, EU AI Act citation

Clause: ai disclosure

Create content that you subsequently claim was created solely by humans, or otherwise misrepresent the provenance of information or content; or provide chatbot services without disclosing to end users that they are interacting with AI (unless it is obvious from the context).

Clause: competing model ban

Create or make available any products or services competitive with, similar to, or that would otherwise be a substitute for the Services (or the third-party AI models used in the Services), except with Perplexity’s express prior written permission.

Clause: EU AI Act citation (explicit, named — not separately concept-tagged)

Engage in any activity or practice that is prohibited or considered ‘high risk’ under the European Union’s AI Act (here) or any other similar regulations governing deployment and/or use of artificial intelligence systems of services.

Clause: anti-watermark-removal (not separately concept-tagged)

Remove watermarks, metadata or other indicia intended to identify outputs as artificially generated or manipulated, or circumvent abuse protections or safety filters, whether Perplexity’s or those of a third party.