Perplexity AI Class Action Lawsuit, $20 Pro Subscribers Allege Hidden Usage Limits, Reduced Features and No Refunds

A putative class action filed on October 28, 2026, accuses Perplexity AI, Inc. of failing to clearly disclose usage limits on its paid Perplexity Pro subscription ($20 per month or $200 per year) and of cutting key features after customers had already paid.

The case is Bonga v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12673, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Plaintiff Ntsikelelo Bonga alleges that Perplexity reduced Deep Research from about 500 queries per day to about 20 per month in February 2026, without advance notice, and never told subscribers how many browser-agent tasks, advanced-model queries or Perplexity Computer operations their money bought.

The proposed class covers U.S. residents who purchased a Perplexity Pro subscription during the applicable limitations period, with a proposed Illinois subclass.

Status as of November 13, 2026: no class has been certified, Perplexity has not been found liable, and there is no settlement, claim form or refund fund.

Perplexity AI Lawsuit: Latest Case Details

Detail	Verified information
Case	Bonga v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
Case number	3:26-cv-12673
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
Filed	October 28, 2026
Initial assignment	October 29, 2026, to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang
Plaintiff	Ntsikelelo Bonga, Illinois resident
Defendant	Perplexity AI, Inc.
Plaintiff’s counsel (as reported)	Tina Wolfson, Deborah De Villa, Lisa Cintron and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C.
Product at issue	Perplexity Pro
Price in complaint	$20 monthly or $200 annually
Claims	California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment
Proposed classes	Nationwide Perplexity Pro purchasers; Illinois subclass
Plaintiff’s first paid charge	October 6, 2026
Relief sought	Damages, restitution, injunctive relief, costs
Class certification	None; proposed classes only
Settlement	None
Official settlement website	None. No settlement exists, so no administrator site has been set up
Claim form	None

The public docket confirms the October 28 complaint and its October 29 assignment. No responsive pleading, certification ruling or merits decision had been reported in the coverage reviewed.

Why Is Perplexity AI, Inc. Being Sued Over Perplexity Pro Subscriptions?

The complaint says Perplexity built its paying customer base by advertising high usage volumes. It points to the launch of Deep Research, when Pro users were reportedly told they could run up to 500 queries per day (free users got five), to promotion of “300+” Pro Searches per day, and to expanded access to tools such as Perplexity Computer and advanced AI models.

According to the complaint, the problem is not that Perplexity has limits at all. It is that a customer cannot tell before subscribing or renewing how much paid access they are buying, and Perplexity can reduce those allowances without warning first.

Bonga argues these omissions matter because the number of advanced searches and AI tasks is a main reason people pay for Pro. He seeks refunds or restitution for lost subscription value and a court order requiring clear disclosure of usage limits. Perplexity has not admitted any of this, and none of it has been proven.

Did Perplexity Cut Deep Research From 500 Queries Per Day to 20 Per Month?

The complaint says yes, around February 2026. The table below shows what it alleges.

Feature	Previously advertised or alleged allowance	Alleged reduced allowance
Deep Research	About 500 queries per day	About 20 per month
Labs	50 uses per month	25 per month
Browser-agent tasks	Number allegedly never disclosed	Limits allegedly imposed without clear disclosure
Advanced AI models	Wider access promoted	Weekly limits allegedly changed
Perplexity Computer	Expanded access promoted	Weekly allowance allegedly undisclosed

These figures are the plaintiff’s allegations. A court has not verified them as the allowance for every subscriber.

The complaint says many users found the changes only when a feature stopped working in the middle of a prepaid period. Perplexity’s own Pro documentation describes research access as extended and says advanced-model access can be limited during heavy usage. Whether that kind of wording tells customers how much service they are getting is the core disagreement.

What Happened to Plaintiff Ntsikelelo Bonga’s Perplexity Pro Account?

Bonga, an Illinois resident, signed up for Pro around October 2025 through a PayPal promotion that gave him 12 months free before renewing at the standard price. He says he chose it for the advanced AI models and browser-assistant features.

February 2026: Perplexity browser tasks stopped working

Perplexity began refusing some of his automated browser requests because he had hit a monthly task limit. On February 11 he asked support what the limit was, where it had been disclosed and whether it could be adjusted. He alleges support would not give a number, said allowances could change, and suggested the more expensive Max plan.

September 2026: Perplexity support still gives no number

Bonga says he contacted support again on September 9 and September 23 and still did not get a specific browser-agent allowance or an answer on advance notice.

October 6, 2026: The free Perplexity Pro promotion became a paid charge

On September 5, Perplexity emailed a reminder that his account would renew for $20 plus tax on October 6. Bonga says the email promoted continued access to advanced research and Perplexity Computer without stating the limits. He was charged on October 6.

The paid renewal matters legally. Bonga says he would not have let the subscription renew, or would have paid less, had the limits been disclosed. That gives him a claimed financial loss instead of mere unhappiness with a free trial.

What Did Perplexity Say About Promotional Pro Accounts in May 2026?

The complaint also describes a May 2026 dispute over accounts obtained with promotional codes, where some users reported reduced access to advanced models. Asked by Android Authority, Perplexity said differences in promotional-account limits were tied to fraudulent or unauthorized resale of promotion codes.

That is the company explaining a change in how it enforced certain promotions. It is not an admission that anything violated consumer law. Bonga’s point is that the episode shows Perplexity can change access for groups of subscribers without clear notice, and that promotional users who later start paying may not know what limits apply to them. Whether those facts support a nationwide claim is undecided.

What Is Perplexity’s Refund Policy for Pro Subscribers?

Perplexity’s published policy sets short refund windows. For most U.S. consumers:

Subscription	Ordinary refund-request window
Monthly Pro	Within 24 hours of purchase
Annual Pro	Within 72 hours of the original purchase
Eligible customers in certain other regions	Different legal or policy windows

These are the company’s policy windows, not court-set limits on every legal remedy. The complaint argues short windows are especially unfair when users find reductions after the window has closed, and alleges Perplexity can keep payments after reducing services already bought.

Can Perplexity Pro subscribers still ask for a refund?

You can submit a request, but the outcome depends on your circumstances. According to Perplexity’s instructions, web subscribers can go to their Pro subscription settings, choose Manage Subscription and follow the cancellation and refund steps. Apple App Store subscribers may need to ask Apple, and Google Play subscribers can contact Perplexity support with their purchase details.

A strict refund policy does not automatically make every denied refund unlawful, and a company policy cannot wipe out rights that the law gives you.

Who Could Be in the Proposed Perplexity Pro Class?

Proposed nationwide class

U.S. residents who purchased a Perplexity Pro subscription during the applicable limitations period. The complaint does not fix a calendar start date.

Proposed Illinois subclass

Illinois residents who purchased Perplexity Pro during that period.

Perplexity annual subscribers

Annual Pro buyers potentially fall within the nationwide class. The complaint specifically discusses prepaying for a year and then allegedly losing access during that year.

Perplexity PayPal promotion users

Bonga began with a free PayPal promotion, but his claimed loss comes from the later paid renewal. Someone who only ever had free access should not assume they qualify as a purchaser.

Perplexity Max subscribers

Not simply because they have Max. The proposed class concerns Pro purchases, and the final definition will decide.

The complaint does not propose a class of free-tier users. No court has approved either proposed class.

What Laws Does Bonga v. Perplexity AI Rely On, and Which Others Could Apply?

The complaint pleads five causes of action built on three consumer-protection theories plus an alternative unjust-enrichment claim. The statutes below are grouped by what the reporting says is pleaded and what often arises in subscription disputes.

Laws the complaint invokes

California Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200)

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 covers unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices. Bonga argues that hiding material limits unfairly shaped purchase decisions. Remedies under the UCL are generally restitution and injunctive relief, and the limitations period is four years under Business and Professions Code § 17208.

California False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500)

California Business and Professions Code § 17500 bars untrue or misleading advertising. The complaint argues that promoting broad access while leaving out the limits could mislead a reasonable consumer. Whether it is actionable turns on the actual ads, disclosures and proof of harm.

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2)

Illinois’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act bars deceptive practices, including concealing or omitting material facts in a sale. The private right of action is in 815 ILCS 505/10a, which allows actual damages, and punitive damages and attorney’s fees where the court permits. The complaint invokes it for Bonga and the Illinois subclass.

Unjust enrichment

Bonga alleges Perplexity kept subscription money for services whose limits were undisclosed or reduced. It is pleaded as an alternative theory, in case an enforceable express contract does not fully cover the conduct.

Related laws that often matter in subscription disputes (not reported as pleaded)

California Automatic Renewal Law (Business and Professions Code § 17600 et seq.)

This law governs clear disclosure of automatic-renewal terms and cancellation for consumers in California. Because Bonga’s complaint centers on an automatic conversion from free to paid, it is a natural companion law, but the reporting does not say he invokes it.

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750 et seq.)

The CLRA is commonly added to false-advertising claims by California consumers. It requires pre-suit notice before damages can be sought. The reporting does not list it here.

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 8401–8405)

ROSCA regulates online negative-option sales, including disclosure of material terms. It is enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general and has no private right of action, so a private plaintiff cannot sue under it directly.

Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45)

This bars unfair or deceptive practices. It is enforced by the FTC, and consumers cannot sue under it directly.

Statutes of limitations

The complaint refers to “the applicable limitations period.” For context, the UCL is four years (§ 17208), the California False Advertising Law is generally three years (Code of Civil Procedure § 338(a)), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act is three years (815 ILCS 505/10a(e)).

Procedural rules that will decide the case

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): Perplexity can move to dismiss claims that do not state a plausible claim.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): fraud-based claims must be pleaded with particularity.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: the plaintiff must meet numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, plus the requirements for a damages class and an injunctive class.
• Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)): the complaint invokes CAFA and alleges more than $5 million in controversy, the usual basis for a large multistate class action in federal court.

These laws have different requirements and remedies. The complaint does not establish that any violation occurred.

For a similar dispute over allegedly degraded digital service, see Anthropic Claude Lawsuit, Did Degraded Service Cost You? — Pascual v. Anthropic, PBC, No. 3:26-cv-07699.

Could Perplexity AI Force Pro Subscribers Into Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act?

This is a major open question. Perplexity’s published terms include an individual arbitration clause and a class-action waiver. Section 9 generally sends covered disputes to arbitration instead of court, with exceptions for certain claims seeking only injunctive relief, including public injunctive relief.

The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16) makes arbitration agreements generally enforceable, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), that it can preempt state rules that bar class-action waivers.

Why does Bonga ask for a public injunction against Perplexity?

Bonga wants the court to order Perplexity to disclose numerical usage limits before purchase, give advance notice before cutting them, disclose limits before renewals and show remaining allowances inside the product.

Public injunctive relief matters because of McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017), where the California Supreme Court held that a contract provision waiving the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum is unenforceable under California law. That does not mean every claim must stay in court as a class action. A judge would still have to read the actual agreement, look at the remedies sought and apply federal and state law.

No ruling compelling arbitration in Bonga, or rejecting the class claims, was independently verified.

Is Bonga v. Perplexity AI the Same as Gagleard v. Perplexity AI, Inc.?

No, although the allegations overlap. Gagleard v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05949, was filed in June 2026 and also challenges alleged cuts to paid subscription services. In that case, Perplexity filed motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration on September 24, 2026, and an October 7 order set further briefing and a motion hearing for January 6, 2027.

Those dates belong to Gagleard, not Bonga. The cases have different plaintiffs, complaints and legal theories, and there is no verified order consolidating them or showing that a ruling in one resolves the other.

How Much Could Perplexity Pro Subscribers Receive?

No amount has been set. The complaint asks for damages, restitution, possible punitive damages where available, costs and court-ordered changes to how Perplexity discloses limits. Any money would depend on what you paid, how the court measures the gap between what was promised and what was delivered, the governing statutes and any eventual settlement.

The complaint alleges more than $5 million in aggregate controversy to meet CAFA. That is a jurisdictional figure, not a settlement fund or an estimate of what any subscriber will receive. There is no verified filing deadline or payment administrator.

For a separate example of advertising allegations, see Shein Fake Discounts Class Action Lawsuit, Inflated Reference Prices Allegedly Created Discounts That Never Existed.

What Should Perplexity Pro Subscribers Do Now?

You do not have to wait for the court.

1. Save subscription records. Keep receipts, renewal emails, payment confirmations and promotion terms, including any PayPal offer.
2. Document limits you hit. Take dated screenshots of usage-limit messages and note which feature you were using.
3. Keep Perplexity support replies. Save anything they say about numerical limits, changes or refunds.
4. Check upcoming renewals. Compare the current plan description with what you were told when you signed up.
5. Ask for a refund if it makes sense. Use Perplexity’s official billing steps and keep the result.
6. Watch the docket. Look for a motion to dismiss, an arbitration ruling, class-certification briefing or a settlement.

Avoid websites that promise class-action payouts and ask for payment details. There is currently no claims process in Bonga.

Has Perplexity AI Responded to the Bonga Lawsuit?

A case-specific response to the October 28 complaint was not found in the public records reviewed. Perplexity’s published terms and Help Center describe limits, plan-change rights and refund rules, and the company has publicly tied some promotional-account restrictions to code-resale fraud. Those statements are background, not a formal defense to every allegation.

Perplexity may argue that disclosures were adequate, that the plaintiff suffered no compensable loss, that California law cannot reach nationwide purchasers, and that the dispute belongs in arbitration. The court has not decided any of these.

What Happens Next in Bonga v. Perplexity AI?

The case is in its earliest stage. Next steps could include service, an initial case-management conference and Perplexity’s response, which could be a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration or an answer. The court will eventually have to decide whether the nationwide and Illinois classes meet Rule 23. Key evidence would likely include past subscription marketing, account-level usage allowances, records of changes to limits, billing data and customer communications.

No trial date, certified class, approved settlement or damages ruling has been verified, and no confirmed hearing date in Bonga was found.

For a different AI issue, privacy rather than paid limits, see OpenAI Class Action Lawsuit, ChatGPT Allegedly Sent Your Private Queries to Meta and Google.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Perplexity AI Lawsuit

Is there a Perplexity AI class action lawsuit in 2026?

Yes. Ntsikelelo Bonga filed Bonga v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12673, on October 28, 2026, in the Northern District of California. It is a putative class action.

Why is Perplexity AI being sued?

The complaint alleges Perplexity did not clearly disclose numerical usage limits on Perplexity Pro, cut certain allowances without advance notice and kept billing subscribers.

Did Perplexity reduce Deep Research to 20 queries per month?

The complaint alleges that happened around February 2026. No court has found that it applies to every Pro subscriber.

Does the Perplexity lawsuit cover the $20 Pro subscription?

Yes. The proposed nationwide class concerns Perplexity Pro purchasers, and annual subscribers may be covered too.

Can Perplexity subscribers who started with a PayPal promotion qualify?

Possibly, if they went on to purchase a qualifying subscription. The named plaintiff started with a free PayPal promotion and was then charged on October 6, 2026.

Does the Perplexity lawsuit include Perplexity Max subscribers?

The proposed class concerns Pro purchases, not every Max subscription.

Is there a Perplexity AI settlement or official settlement website?

No. There is no settlement, no administrator and no official settlement website.

Can I file a Perplexity Pro claim now?

No. There is no class-action claim form or filing deadline in this case.

Can Perplexity legally change its usage limits?

Companies often reserve contract rights to change services, but that does not by itself answer claims of misleading advertising, material omission or inadequate notice. The specific terms and consumer-protection laws decide.

Is Perplexity’s arbitration clause enforceable?

That has not been decided in Bonga. The terms contain an arbitration agreement with exceptions, including for public injunctive relief.

When is the next hearing in Bonga v. Perplexity AI?

No confirmed hearing date in Bonga was found. The January 6, 2027, hearing belongs to the separate Gagleard case.

Bottom Line

Bonga v. Perplexity AI, Inc. asks whether paying customers were given enough information about the limits and changes affecting Perplexity Pro. Bonga alleges Perplexity cut important features without notice, would not state precise limits and kept collecting payments, including his first paid charge on October 6, 2026.

Perplexity’s own policies describe usage limits and short refund windows, but a court has not decided whether those policies or the alleged disclosures broke any consumer law. The case could affect how AI subscription companies describe usage allowances and mid-subscription changes. For now it is a putative class action with no approved compensation, settlement or claim deadline.

Primary Sources and Legal References

• Bonga v. Perplexity AI, Inc.: 23-page Federal Class Action Complaint, October 28, 2026
• Bonga v. Perplexity AI: Federal Court Docket
• Perplexity: Official Pro Subscription Description
• Perplexity: Official Refund Policy
• Perplexity: Terms of Service and Arbitration Provisions
• California Business and Professions Code § 17200
• California Business and Professions Code § 17500
• Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, § 2
• Gagleard v. Perplexity AI: October 7, 2026 Federal Court Scheduling Order

Disclaimer: This is general legal information, not legal advice. The claims described are allegations that have not been proven in court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the filed complaint, the public federal docket, Perplexity’s official Help Center, refund policy and Terms of Service, and the statutory sources cited above, as of November 13, 2026. Last Updated: November 13, 2026.