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

Ninth Circuit Overturns Amazon's Injunction Against Perplexity AI Shopping Bot

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that had temporarily barred Perplexity from using its AI shopping tools on Amazon's platform1

1

. The ruling marks the first time a federal appeals court has addressed whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms, setting a potential legal precedent for the fast-growing field of agentic AI systems1

1

.

The court determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal anti-hacking law1

1

. According to the ruling, to succeed on a CFAA claim, Amazon would need to prove 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 period5

5

.

User Access vs. AI Agent Access: The Core Legal Question

The Ninth Circuit's key finding centered on who was actually accessing Amazon's servers. Because Perplexity's Comet browser requires user direction to access Amazon, the appeals court ruled it was the users themselves, not Perplexity, who accessed Amazon's platform under the law1

1

2

2

. This distinction proved critical in overturning the ban.

The court stated that an injunction against conduct that likely does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act would not serve the public interest2

2

. Additionally, the harm Amazon could suffer by allowing Perplexity to offer the Comet browser's shopping capabilities did not warrant an injunction2

2

.

The Amazon Perplexity Lawsuit: Origins and Claims

The Amazon Perplexity lawsuit began in November 2025 when Amazon sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Perplexity block its AI browser from accessing Amazon's online store2

2

. Amazon claimed both companies had agreed to pause agentic shopping in 2024, but that Perplexity later restored the feature by disguising Comet's AI bot as a normal Chrome browser to avoid detection2

2

.

Amazon filed suit in March 2026, accusing Perplexity 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 behalf1

1

. The lawsuit claimed Perplexity's system posed security risks and that the company had ignored repeated requests to stop the unauthorized access1

1

.

Perplexity's Defense and User Choice Arguments

Perplexity responded that the lawsuit lacked merit and was a "bald attempt" to block Amazon users from using the Comet browser because AI agents "don't have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with"1

1

. The company 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 visit3

3

.

"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"1

1

.

Implications for E-Commerce Platforms and Third-Party Agents

The reasoning behind the ruling carries significant implications for e-commerce platforms and how they can restrict third-party agents. If an AI agent acting on a user's instruction is legally considered the user accessing a platform, then platforms lose one of their primary tools for keeping user-permissioned AI agents out3

3

. The decision gives other agent-makers a template to argue that acting for a user does not constitute unauthorized access, and puts platforms on notice that blanket bans may not survive legal scrutiny3

3

.

For Amazon, this threatens a carefully designed shopping experience it controls, from search ranking to recommendations. An AI agent that bypasses these layers strips the retailer of influence and ad revenue that this control generates3

3

. Retail media has become one of Amazon's fastest-growing profit lines, and the Perplexity AI shopping bot that ignores sponsored placements and buys the cheapest match threatens the ad economics holding much of that business together3

3

.

What Happens Next in the Legal Battle

While the appeals court decision eliminates the overturned preliminary injunction, it does not close the case in either company's favor2

2

. Amazon can seek a rehearing or ask the Supreme Court to review the decision, and the underlying lawsuit will continue in the federal court in San Francisco where it was originally filed2

2

5

5

.

"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"2

2

5

5

.

The Broader Battle Over Agentic AI and Automated Traffic

The dispute highlights deeper tensions about how agentic AI systems will reshape online commerce. These systems can plan, reason and execute tasks with limited human oversight1

1

. Websites were built for humans clicking through pages, and automated traffic from bots that read and buy at machine speed strains both the technical assumptions and business models underneath them3

3

.

Amazon has been building its own agentic layer, integrating Alexa inside the search bar as it races to own the shopping agent rather than be bypassed by someone else's3

3

. The shift is already underway elsewhere, with China's biggest platforms replacing the search bar with AI agents that shop for users, offering a preview of where Western retail may be heading3

3

. The mechanics are converging as well, with Alibaba wiring its own model straight into Taobao for end-to-end agentic shopping3

3

.

Watch for how Amazon responds to this setback and whether other platforms attempt to restrict AI agents acting on behalf of users through terms of service or technical measures. The outcome of the underlying lawsuit could establish clearer boundaries for how agentic AI systems can interact with online platforms.