Perplexity AI, the rising artificial intelligence search startup often touted as a challenger to Google, is once again under fire for allegedly harvesting content from websites without consent — this time drawing sharp criticism from Cloudflare, one of the largest web infrastructure providers in the world.

According to a report published by Cloudflare, Perplexity’s web crawlers have allegedly continued to access and scrape content from websites that have explicitly opted out of such activity via tools like robots.txt files or firewall rules. The company claims Perplexity’s bots “intentionally obfuscate their identity” and engage in stealth tactics to bypass restrictions, including by masking themselves as popular web browsers like Google Chrome on macOS.

“When we blocked access to our test domains via common methods, Perplexity’s crawlers responded by changing their user-agent and IP address to continue scraping,” Cloudflare said in the report.

Cloudflare further alleges that the AI firm is exploiting rotating IP addresses and altering Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) — unique identifiers assigned to networks — to circumvent blocks and avoid detection. This stealth activity, according to Cloudflare, spanned across tens of thousands of websites and millions of requests daily.

This is not the first time Perplexity has been accused of bypassing digital boundaries. In mid-2023, the startup was caught indexing content from subscription-based and paywalled media outlets without permission. At the time, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas deflected the criticism, blaming the issue on third-party scrapers operating on the company’s behalf. But now, with Cloudflare’s claims, scrutiny over the company’s data-gathering practices has only intensified.

In response to the latest report, Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer dismissed Cloudflare’s findings as a “publicity stunt.”  He told The Verge that the blog post contained “a lot of misunderstandings.” Still, the report has prompted Cloudflare to delist Perplexity as a “verified bot” and roll out additional protections that block its scrapers by default.

Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince, a vocal critic of unregulated AI content harvesting, recently warned of what he described as an “existential threat” to content creators and publishers from AI companies. In June, Cloudflare launched new controls allowing websites to demand payment from AI firms for data access, effectively tightening the screws on those trying to extract information without consent.

“AI crawlers have been scraping content without limits. Our goal is to put the power back in the hands of creators while still helping AI companies innovate.

“This is about safeguarding the future of a free and vibrant Internet with a new model that works for everyone,” the CEO stated.

The escalating clash between AI startups and infrastructure firms like Cloudflare comes at a time when legal questions surrounding data scraping, copyright, and consent remain unresolved. The core tension revolves around the very fuel of modern AI systems: data. With large language models hungry for ever-expanding datasets to improve performance, some companies have been accused of cutting corners in how they obtain that information.

Perplexity, founded by Srinivas and backed by Jeff Bezos and Nvidia, has positioned itself as a real-time, citation-focused search engine designed to counterbalance the dominance of Google and Bing. But its reliance on web-sourced content — including journalism — has made it a target for media companies, which have grown increasingly wary of their work being used to train AI tools without compensation.

With more publishers adding AI-blocking rules to their sites and companies like Cloudflare rolling out enforcement tools, Perplexity and its peers face growing pressure to justify how they obtain the data powering their products — and whether their methods can survive legal and reputational scrutiny.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a Coinbase TV advertisement, for being misleading due to insufficient risk disclosures and for presenting cryptocurrency as a solution to economic challenges without adequate evidence.

The ad, part of the “Everything Is Fine” campaign, used a leaking ceiling metaphor and satirical musical elements to critique the traditional financial system, highlighting issues like the cost-of-living crisis, unaffordable housing, and rising prices. It was blocked by Clearcast, owned by major UK broadcasters, for violating the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP).

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong criticized the ban, calling it censorship and arguing that it reflects an outdated view of crypto as a gambling product. He suggested the ad’s message struck a nerve, stating, “If you can’t say it, then there must be a kernel of truth in it,” and welcomed the backlash, believing it amplifies the ad’s reach via the “Streisand effect.”

Armstrong also noted similar ads aired in the US without issue, emphasizing that crypto could improve the financial system. The ban has sparked debate over the UK’s crypto regulation. Critics, including former Chancellor George Osborne, a Coinbase advisor, argue the UK’s strict approach risks stifling innovation and driving talent abroad, especially compared to more progressive frameworks like the EU’s MiCA.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has struggled with enforcement, with only 54% of 1,702 flagged illegal crypto ads removed as of January 2025. Some community members criticized the ad’s tone, calling it exaggerated or disrespectful, while others praised it as a wake-up call. Coinbase shared the ad online after the ban, gaining significant traction.

Coinbase’s ad critiqued systemic issues like inflation and unaffordable housing, implicitly positioning crypto as an alternative. This could prompt stricter oversight of all financial ads, including those from banks, to ensure they don’t overpromise or mislead consumers about economic solutions. Traditional banks may face pressure to enhance transparency in their marketing, particularly regarding risks, fees, and economic realities.

The ad’s critique of the traditional financial system—described as “leaky” and inadequate—puts public pressure on banks to address longstanding issues like high fees, slow cross-border transactions, and limited access for the unbanked. Crypto’s decentralized model, as highlighted by Coinbase, showcases alternatives that banks may need to counter with their own innovations, such as adopting blockchain for faster settlements or offering digital wallets.

Banks may accelerate partnerships with fintechs or develop central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to compete with crypto’s narrative of efficiency and inclusivity. For instance, the Bank of England’s exploration of a digital pound could gain urgency. The ad’s satirical portrayal of economic challenges could amplify public dissatisfaction with traditional banking, especially amid cost-of-living crises.

If crypto platforms continue to position themselves as solutions to systemic failures, banks risk losing younger, tech-savvy customers who view decentralized finance (DeFi) as more transparent or empowering.
Banks may need to invest in public education campaigns to rebuild trust, emphasizing stability, regulatory oversight, and consumer protections that crypto lacks.

The ban reflects regulators’ cautious approach to crypto’s challenge to traditional finance, which could indirectly shield banks from immediate competitive threats. However, it also signals to banks that regulators expect all financial players to adhere to strict consumer protection standards, potentially increasing compliance costs.

Crypto’s growing visibility may force banks to lobby for clearer regulations to level the playing field, as ambiguous rules (e.g., the FCA’s limited enforcement success, with only 54% of illegal crypto ads removed by January 2025) create uncertainty for all financial institutions. The UK’s strict stance, contrasted with more crypto-friendly frameworks like the EU’s MiCA, may push innovation to other jurisdictions.

The ASA’s ruling establishes a precedent that ads for financial products, especially those positioning themselves as alternatives to traditional banking, must include robust risk disclosures and avoid unsubstantiated claims about solving economic issues. This applies not only to crypto but also to fintechs offering novel financial products, potentially raising the bar for banks’ own marketing claims.

Future ads from banks or fintechs that critique competitors or systemic issues will likely face similar scrutiny, requiring clear evidence and balanced messaging. By blocking Coinbase’s ad, the ASA and Clearcast (owned by major UK broadcasters) set a precedent for preemptive censorship of financial ads deemed too provocative or misleading.

Coinbase’s response—sharing the banned ad online and leveraging the “Streisand effect”—sets a precedent for financial firms to turn regulatory pushback into a marketing opportunity. This could inspire banks to adopt similar strategies, using social media or alternative platforms to bypass traditional advertising gatekeepers like Clearcast, especially if their ads face restrictions.

Traditional banks, backed by decades of infrastructure and regulatory trust, face a dual challenge: adapting to technological disruption while navigating stricter oversight triggered by crypto’s bold claims. The UK’s regulatory stance, while protective of consumers, risks lagging behind jurisdictions like the EU, where MiCA offers a clearer path for crypto integration. Banks may need to proactively adopt blockchain, enhance digital offerings, or advocate for regulatory clarity to stay competitive.