Court Overturns Amazon Ban on Perplexity's AI Shopping Tools in Landmark Agentic AI Ruling

Amazon loses US court ban on Perplexity's AI shopping tools

Aug 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday overturned a ruling that had temporarily barred Perplexity from using its AI-powered agentic shopping tools on Amazon's (AMZN.O), opens new tab platform. In a novel legal dispute, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined, opens new tab that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated a federal computer-hacking law. The ruling is the first by a federal appeals court to address whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms, a question with broad implications for the fast-growing field of agentic AI tools that can browse, shop ⁠and transact across the web. Spokespeople for Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision. "Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want," company spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in a statement. "We have always been confident the truth will prevail and the rights of users will not be chipped away." Agentic AI systems can plan, reason and execute tasks with limited human oversight. Amazon sued Perplexity in November, accusing the AI startup of covertly accessing private Amazon customer accounts through its Comet browser and associated AI ⁠agent, which can log into users' online shopping accounts and place orders on their behalf. The lawsuit said Perplexity's system posed security risks and that it had ignored repeated requests to stop. Perplexity responded that the lawsuit lacked merit and was a "bald attempt" to block Amazon users from using Comet because AI ⁠agents "don't have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with." A federal judge in California temporarily blocked Perplexity in March from using its agentic AI on Amazon's platform, finding Amazon had presented "strong evidence" ⁠that Perplexity's AI agent broke a U.S. computer fraud and abuse law. The 9th Circuit overturned the ban on Tuesday, favoring Perplexity's argument that it did not violate a statute that prohibits people from accessing ⁠computers and obtaining information from them without permission. The appeals court said it was Perplexity's users, using the company's AI agents, who "accessed" Amazon's platform under the law, rather than Perplexity itself. Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Lisa Shumaker Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence Blake Brittain Thomson Reuters Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, for Reuters Legal. He has previously written for Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters Practical Law and practiced as an attorney.

Perplexity has successfully overturned Amazon's injunction on its AI shopping bot - Engadget

Amazon's public fight with Perplexity over online shopping started in November 2025. Perplexity has successfully overturned an injunction that banned the AI shopping tool built into its Comet browser from accessing Amazon, Bloomberg reports. According to an opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Amazon's original claim that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) doesn't hold up to scrutiny and shouldn't have been rewarded with an injunction. Successfully claiming that Perplexity violated the law requires Amazon to prove that the company intentionally accessed a computer without authorization, obtained information from that protected computer and that there was a loss "to one or more persons during any one-year period" that averaged at least $5,000 in value. Because Comet, Perplexity's AI browser, requires user direction to use Amazon on its own, the appeals court determined it was the Comet user who was accessing Amazon's "computers" (the servers that host Amazon.com) and not Perplexity itself. Per the court, an injunction "against conduct that likely does not violate the CFAA or the CDAFA would not serve the public interest." Additionally, the harm Amazon could suffer by letting Perplexity offer Comet's shopping capabilities didn't warrant an injunction in the first place. "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction," Amazon said in a statement to Engadget. "We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps." Amazon sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter in November 2025 demanding that it block its AI browser from accessing Amazon's online store. According to Amazon, both companies had agreed to an earlier pause on agentic shopping in 2024, but Perplexity went back on the agreement and re-enabled the feature by disguising Comet's AI bot as a normal Chrome browser. In response, Amazon filed a lawsuit against Perplexity in March 2026 and was awarded a temporary injunction not long after. While the appeals court decision eliminates Amazon's injunction, it doesn't close the case in either company's favor. Amazon can ask for a rehearing or ask the Supreme Court for a review. And even if it doesn't pursue either option, the company's lawsuit will still play out in the San Francisco federal court where it was originally filed, giving Amazon another opportunity to argue its case.

Court lets Perplexity's AI agent shop on Amazon, overturning a ban

The Ninth Circuit ruled that an agent acting on a user's instruction is the user accessing Amazon, not the software, cracking open a door platforms wanted shut. An AI agent can shop on Amazon whether Amazon likes it or not. A US appeals court has overturned an injunction that barred Perplexity's shopping agent from the retailer, handing an early win to the software that browses and buys on people's behalf. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Amazon's core legal claim did not hold. Because Perplexity's Comet agent acts only when a user tells it to, the court found it is the user, not Perplexity, who is accessing Amazon's servers. Comet is the agent built into Perplexity's AI browser. Point it at a product and it can navigate Amazon and complete a purchase, the kind of autonomous errand a wave of AI companies are betting will replace ordinary online shopping. The retailer argued the agent amounted to unauthorised access, said Perplexity had disguised Comet as a normal Chrome browser to avoid detection, and pointed to a 2024 agreement in which Perplexity had agreed to pause agentic shopping. Perplexity cast the fight as one over who controls a person's shopping experience, arguing that users should be free to bring whatever software they like to websites they already have the right to visit. The dispute turned on a decades-old hacking law. Amazon leaned on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, written for a very different kind of intrusion, and the court decided that a tool doing a user's bidding does not fit its definition of unauthorised access. The reasoning is the real prize. If an agent acting on a user's instruction is legally the user, then platforms lose one of their sharpest tools for keeping third-party agents out, and the door to agentic commerce swings open. For Amazon, that is precisely the fear. It has spent years designing a shopping experience it controls, from search ranking to recommendations, and an agent that skips all of it strips the retailer of the influence, and the ad revenue, that layer generates. Amazon has been building its own agentic layer, putting Alexa inside the search bar as it races to own the shopping agent rather than be bypassed by someone else's. The shift is already well underway elsewhere. China's biggest platforms have gone furthest, replacing the search bar with AI agents that shop for users, a preview of where Western retail may be heading. The mechanics are converging too. Alibaba has wired its own model straight into Taobao for end-to-end agentic shopping, the sort of first-party integration Amazon would prefer to a rival's bot crawling its aisles. The fight is not over. Amazon said it remains confident and is weighing its options, which include seeking a rehearing or asking the Supreme Court, while the underlying lawsuit continues in a San Francisco court. But an appeals-court ruling carries weight. It gives other agent-makers a template to argue that acting for a user is not hacking, and it puts platforms on notice that blanket bans may not survive contact with the law. It also nudges a bigger, unsettled question. When an agent does something harmful rather than helpful, it is still unclear who is liable, and treating the agent as the user has consequences well beyond a shopping cart. The stakes are commercial as much as legal. Retail media has become one of Amazon's fastest-growing profit lines, and an agent that ignores sponsored placements and buys the cheapest match threatens the ad economics holding much of that business together. The deeper tension is structural. Websites were built for humans clicking through pages, and a bot that reads and buys at machine speed strains both the technical assumptions and the business models underneath them. For now, the agents have the upper hand. A court blocked the web's biggest retailer from keeping them out, in a ruling that may prove much bigger than it first appears.

Perplexity Wins Appeal Against Amazon in AI Agent Shopping Lawsuit

The ruling could shape future legal battles over agentic AI and online commerce. A federal appeals court has overturned an order blocking Perplexity's AI shopping tools on Amazon, handing the startup an early victory in a closely watched case over how autonomous AI agents can interact with online platforms. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Amazon is unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal anti-hacking law. "To succeed on a claim under the CFAA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally accessed a computer, without authorization or exceeding authorized access, thereby obtained information from any protected computer, and that there was loss to one or more persons during any one-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value," the ruling said. The court said Amazon's users, not Perplexity, accessed the platform through its agentic AI browser Comet, which can browse websites, log into accounts, and make purchases on a user's behalf. The dispute began in November, when Amazon sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter before filing suit. Amazon said Perplexity's Comet browser disguised automated traffic as a standard web browser, violated its terms of service, and accessed customer accounts without authorization. Perplexity argued Comet acted only with users' permission using credentials stored on their own devices and accused Amazon of trying to block consumer choice in AI assistants. In March, a federal judge granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, finding the company had presented strong evidence that Perplexity likely violated federal and California computer fraud laws by accessing password-protected Amazon accounts without Amazon's permission. The order temporarily blocked Comet from shopping on Amazon while the lawsuit proceeded. Although the underlying lawsuit is ongoing, the ruling offers an indication of how courts may approach AI agents that act on behalf of users.

Perplexity defeats Amazon in AI browser ruling

Perplexity has overturned a preliminary injunction that had barred the AI shopping tool in its Comet browser from accessing Amazon, according to Bloomberg. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said Amazon's claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was unlikely to succeed, finding that Comet requires user direction to access Amazon and that the user, not Perplexity, was accessing Amazon's servers. The court said Amazon would need to show that Perplexity intentionally accessed a protected computer without authorization, obtained information from it, and caused losses of at least $5,000 during a one-year period to support a CFAA claim. The opinion also said an injunction against conduct that likely does not violate the CFAA or California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act would not be in the public interest. The court added that the potential harm to Amazon from allowing Perplexity to offer Comet's shopping features did not justify an injunction. "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction," Amazon said in a statement. "We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps." The dispute began publicly in November 2025, when Amazon sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it block its AI browser from accessing Amazon's online store. Amazon said the companies had agreed in 2024 to pause agentic shopping, but that Perplexity later restored the feature by disguising Comet's AI bot as a normal Chrome browser. Amazon sued Perplexity in March 2026 and won a temporary injunction shortly afterward. The appeals court ruling lifts that injunction but does not end the case. Amazon can seek a rehearing or ask the Supreme Court to review the decision, and the lawsuit will continue in federal court in San Francisco.

Amazon Loses US Court Ban on Perplexity's AI Shopping Tools

Aug 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ⁠on ⁠Tuesday overturned a ruling that ⁠had temporarily barred Perplexity from using its AI-powered agentic shopping tools on Amazon's platform. In a novel legal dispute, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated a federal computer-hacking law. The ruling is ⁠the first by ⁠a federal appeals court to address whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms, a question with broad implications for the fast-growing field of agentic AI tools that can browse, shop and transact across the web. Spokespeople for Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision. "Perplexity will continue to fight ⁠for the ⁠right of internet users ⁠to choose whatever AI they want," company spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in a statement. "We have always been confident the truth will prevail ⁠and the rights of users will not be chipped away." Agentic AI systems can plan, reason and execute tasks with limited human oversight. Amazon sued Perplexity in November, accusing the AI startup of covertly accessing private Amazon customer accounts through its Comet browser and associated AI agent, which can log into ⁠users' online shopping accounts and place orders on their behalf. The lawsuit said Perplexity's ⁠system posed security risks and that it had ignored repeated requests to stop. Perplexity responded that the lawsuit lacked merit and was a "bald attempt" to block Amazon users from using Comet because AI agents "don't have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with." A federal judge in California temporarily blocked Perplexity in March from using its agentic AI on Amazon's platform, finding Amazon had presented "strong evidence" that Perplexity's AI agent broke a U.S. computer fraud and abuse law. The 9th Circuit overturned the ban ⁠on Tuesday, favoring Perplexity's argument that it did not violate a statute that prohibits people from accessing computers and obtaining information from them without permission. The appeals court said it was Perplexity's users, using the company's AI agents, who "accessed" Amazon's platform under the law, rather than Perplexity itself. (Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Lisa Shumaker)

Perplexity AI: Amazon loses US court ban on Perplexity's AI shopping tools

In a novel legal dispute, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated a federal computer-hacking law. A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday overturned a ruling that had temporarily barred Perplexity from using its AI-powered agentic shopping tools on Amazon's platform. In a novel legal dispute, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated a federal computer-hacking law. The ruling is the first by a federal ⁠appeals ⁠court to address whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms, a question with broad implications for the fast-growing field of agentic AI tools that can browse, shop and transact across the web. "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction," an Amazon spokesperson said. "We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps." "Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet ⁠users to choose whatever AI they want," company spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in a statement. "We have always been confident the truth will prevail and the rights ⁠of users will not be chipped away." Agentic AI systems can plan, reason and execute tasks with limited human oversight. Amazon sued Perplexity in November, accusing the AI startup of covertly accessing private Amazon customer accounts through its Comet browser and associated AI agent, which can log into users' online shopping accounts and place orders on their behalf. The lawsuit said Perplexity's system posed security risks and that it had ignored repeated requests to stop. Perplexity responded that the lawsuit lacked merit and was a "bald attempt" to block Amazon users from using Comet because AI agents "don't have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with." A federal judge in ⁠California temporarily blocked Perplexity in March from using its agentic AI on Amazon's platform, finding Amazon had presented "strong evidence" that Perplexity's AI agent broke a U.S. computer fraud and abuse law. The 9th Circuit overturned the ban on Tuesday, favoring Perplexity's argument that it did not violate a statute that prohibits people from accessing computers and obtaining information from them without permission. The appeals court said it was Perplexity's users, using the company's AI agents, who "accessed" Amazon's platform under the law, rather than Perplexity itself.

Ninth Circuit Narrows CFAA Reach in Perplexity Agentic Commerce Ruling | PYMNTS.com

The panel concluded that Amazon is unlikely to prevail on its claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) because, on the record before the court, it is Amazon's customers -- not Perplexity -- that access Amazon's computer systems. The decision, described by Reuters as the first federal appellate ruling addressing whether AI agents acting on behalf of users may legally access online platforms, establishes an important early framework for the rapidly emerging field of agentic commerce. Amazon sued Perplexity in November, alleging that the startup's Comet browser covertly accessed password-protected customer accounts, exposing users to cybersecurity risks and violating both the CFAA and California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). A district court granted Amazon a preliminary injunction in March after finding "strong evidence" that Perplexity's AI agent unlawfully accessed Amazon's systems. The Ninth Circuit, however, concluded that the district court applied the law too broadly. Writing for the panel, Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. emphasized that the CFAA remains principally an anti-hacking statute. The central legal issue was not whether Perplexity's AI assistant interacted with Amazon's website, but whether Perplexity itself "accessed" Amazon's protected computers within the meaning of the statute. The court concluded that it did not. Instead, the panel found that the user accesses Amazon's website using the Comet browser, while Perplexity's Assistant functions as a software tool helping the user perform requested tasks. Although screenshots from the user's browser are transmitted to Perplexity's servers, and those servers send instructions back to the AI assistant, the court held that those communications do not amount to Perplexity itself gaining entry to Amazon's servers. That distinction could prove highly consequential for developers of agentic AI systems. Rather than treating autonomous software agents as independent legal actors whose conduct is automatically attributable to their developers, the panel viewed the AI assistant as analogous to an advanced software tool operating under a user's direction. The opinion repeatedly stressed that, under the current factual record, it is the user -- not the AI company -- who accesses the protected computer system. The judges acknowledged that agentic AI represents an emerging technology for which little precedent exists. They cautioned that their holding is narrowly limited to the CFAA's "access" requirement and to the specific technology presented in this case. The court expressly left open whether different factual circumstances or more autonomous AI systems could produce a different outcome. The opinion also relied heavily on the Supreme Court's narrowing interpretation of the CFAA in Van Buren v. United States and the Ninth Circuit's earlier decisions in hiQ Labs and Nosal, emphasizing that courts should avoid expanding the statute beyond its intended purpose of combating computer hacking. The court also rejected Amazon's request for injunctive relief under California's CDAFA, finding that although the state statute defines computer access somewhat more broadly, it likewise focuses on conduct by a person. The panel also found that the traditional equitable factors weighed against an injunction. It characterized Amazon's evidence of irreparable harm, including assertions that Perplexity could degrade the shopping experience or create cybersecurity risks, as relatively weak. By contrast, preventing Perplexity from deploying a product into which it had invested substantial resources would impose significant hardship while limiting consumer choice and slowing development of an emerging technology. Reuters reported that Amazon said it disagreed with the ruling and is evaluating its next steps, while Perplexity hailed the decision as a victory for consumers' ability to choose AI tools. Although the litigation now returns to the district court for further proceedings, the Ninth Circuit's opinion signals that existing computer fraud laws may not provide platform operators with an easy mechanism for restricting agentic commerce, potentially shifting future disputes toward contract law, platform terms of service and new AI-specific regulatory frameworks.

Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Perplexity AI Shopping Agents on Amazon | PYMNTS.com

Amazon argued that Perplexity's AI agents violated a federal hacking law, while Perplexity countered that it did not violate the statute that prevents people from accessing computers without permission, according to the report. When overturning the ban on Tuesday, the appeals court ruled that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim and that it was Perplexity's users, not Perplexity itself, who accessed Amazon's platform, per the report. A Perplexity spokesperson said in the report, after the ruling: "Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want." An Amazon spokesperson said, per the report: "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction. We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps." The dispute between Amazon and Perplexity over the deployment of third-party AI agents for shopping came to light in November, when Perplexity said in a blog post that it received an "aggressive legal threat" from Amazon demanding that it prohibit the users of its Comet browser using their AI assistants to shop on Amazon's platform. Perplexity said in its post that it would not be intimidated and that it would fight to ensure users can deploy agentic AI "to take control of their digital lives." In a November statement posted on its website in response to Perplexity, Amazon said that it thought it is "fairly straightforward" that third-party applications offering to make purchases for customers from other businesses should respect businesses' decisions about whether or not to participate. When Amazon secured a temporary injunction to stop Perplexity's AI agents from shopping and making purchases on its site, the federal judge said that Amazon provided "strong evidence" that Perplexity's Comet browser accessed its site without authorization from Amazon, and that Amazon had shown "a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim." According to Tuesday's report by Reuters, the appeals court's decision to overturn the ban is the first ruling by a federal appeals court to address whether AI agents that are acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms.

What the Perplexity vs Amazon ruling means for AI agents

* Access the court document on the AI agents verdict here An 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."