- Access the court document on the AI agents verdict here
A US appeals court has lifted a temporary ban on Perplexity AI’s shopping agent on Amazon. It ruled that Amazon is unlikely to prove that Perplexity violated the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The decision is among the first appellate rulings on whether AI agents can legally access online platforms on behalf of users. The ruling could shape how agentic AI tools interact with websites in the future.
The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals held that, based on the current record, Amazon’s users, not Perplexity, accessed Amazon’s platform. They did so while using Perplexity’s AI assistant. The court said Perplexity was therefore unlikely to have “accessed” Amazon’s computers within the meaning of the CFAA. It also vacated the preliminary injunction granted by a lower court and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Court Rejects Amazon’s Access Argument: The dispute centres on Perplexity’s Comet browser. It includes an AI assistant that can browse websites and complete shopping tasks at a user’s direction. Amazon argued that the AI agent unlawfully entered its systems. It also alleged that the AI assistant accessed users’ password-protected accounts without permission. Amazon further claimed that the tool created security risks by masking its activity as ordinary web browsing. It also alleged that Perplexity ignored repeated requests to stop using the tool on Amazon.
The appeals court disagreed with Amazon’s key legal argument. The court held that, based on the current record, it is the user, not Perplexity, who accessed Amazon’s systems. The AI assistant merely helps carry out the user’s instructions. The judges said Perplexity’s servers receive screenshots from the browser. They also send navigation instructions back to it. However, that alone does not amount to Perplexity itself accessing Amazon’s computers. The court also stressed that its ruling is limited to the facts before it. It does not establish broader legal principles governing agentic AI.
The court further found that Amazon had not shown sufficient grounds for a preliminary injunction. It said Amazon’s claims of harm to customer experience and cybersecurity were not strong enough at this stage. It also held that blocking Perplexity’s product would unfairly burden the company. The court said the ban could also limit consumer choice. It added that the order could slow the development of emerging AI technology. However, the judges noted that the ruling does not prevent Amazon from controlling access to its platform. It can still do so through its own contractual terms.
How the dispute reached court: The case began in November 2025, when Amazon sued Perplexity. It alleged that Comet secretly accessed Amazon accounts by presenting itself as a regular web browser. Amazon also claimed the tool violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). The company said the AI assistant could retrieve account information. It also alleged that the tool could complete purchases without authorisation, expose sensitive customer data, and weaken the shopping experience. It also alleged that Perplexity resumed the activity despite earlier assurances that it would stop.
Perplexity rejected the allegations, calling the lawsuit an attempt to block users from choosing AI assistants for online shopping. In a blog post, it said, “this is Amazon’s first legal salvo against an AI company, and it is a threat to all internet users.” The company also argued that “Amazon announced it does not believe in your right to hire labour, to have an assistant or an employee acting on your behalf.” Amazon, meanwhile, maintained that third-party shopping tools should “operate openly and respect service provider decisions whether or not to participate.”
How the case evolved: In March 2026, a California federal judge granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, finding that the company had presented “strong evidence” that Perplexity’s AI agent unlawfully accessed Amazon’s systems. The order temporarily blocked Perplexity’s shopping assistant from operating on Amazon while the case continued.
When the appeal was argued in June, the judges questioned how a law enacted in 1986 should apply to modern AI systems. During the hearing, Judge Eric Tung observed, “The user is giving the key to Perplexity, and Perplexity is then entering Amazon’s servers or computers. Much of this case turns on the proper analogy.” District Judge John Hinderaker, sitting by designation, also remarked, “Does an AI agent ever have intent?”
Why the ruling matters: The ruling is significant because it offers one of the earliest appellate interpretations of how existing computer access laws apply to AI agents. These AI agents act on behalf of users. The court declined to create a broader legal framework for agentic AI. However, it signalled that traditional computer hacking laws may not automatically extend to AI assistants performing user-directed tasks.
Following the decision, Amazon said, “We respectfully disagree with today’s decision on the preliminary injunction. We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps.” Perplexity welcomed the outcome, stating, “Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want. We have always been confident the truth will prevail and the rights of users will not be chipped away.”
Read more: