US Appeals Court Lifts Ban on Perplexity AI Shopping Agent on Amazon

A US appeals court has lifted a temporary ban on Perplexity AI's shopping agent that prohibited its operation on Amazon. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Amazon is unlikely to prove Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). This decision represents one of the earliest appellate rulings addressing the legality of AI agents accessing online platforms for users and may influence future interactions between AI tools and websites.

The appellate court determined that, based on the available evidence, it was Amazon's users, not Perplexity, who accessed Amazon's platform while using Perplexity's AI assistant. Consequently, the court found it unlikely that Perplexity itself "accessed" Amazon's computers as defined by the CFAA. The preliminary injunction granted by the lower court was vacated, and the case has been remanded for further proceedings.

The dispute originated from Perplexity's Comet browser, which includes an AI assistant designed to browse websites and perform shopping tasks per user instructions. Amazon alleged that the AI agent unlawfully entered its systems, accessed user accounts without permission, and posed security risks by disguising its activity as regular browsing. Amazon also claimed Perplexity continued this behavior despite prior assurances to cease.

The appeals court disagreed with Amazon's core legal argument, stating that the user, not Perplexity, initiated the access. While Perplexity's servers exchanged data and navigation commands with the browser, this intermediary role did not constitute direct access by Perplexity to Amazon's computers. The court emphasized that its ruling was specific to the facts presented and does not establish broad legal principles for agentic AI. The court also found Amazon's claims of harm insufficient for a preliminary injunction at this stage, noting that blocking Perplexity's product could burden the company and limit consumer choice and AI development.

This ruling is significant as it offers an early interpretation of how existing computer access laws apply to AI agents acting on behalf of users. While not creating a new legal framework, the decision suggests that traditional hacking laws may not automatically apply to AI assistants performing user-directed tasks. Amazon stated they respectfully disagree with the ruling and are evaluating next steps, while Perplexity welcomed the outcome, affirming their commitment to user choice in AI.