Amazon v. Perplexity AI — User, Not AI-Agent Developer, Accessed Amazon Computers

Background

Perplexity’s Comet browser includes an optional AI assistant that can shop on Amazon.com at a user’s direction. Amazon obtained a preliminary injunction under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s computer-access statute, arguing that Perplexity’s agent accessed Amazon systems without authorization.

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction. On the preliminary record, the human user—not Perplexity—accessed Amazon’s computers while using the assistant as a tool. The user chose the website and directed particular shopping tasks; the assistant operated locally through the user’s browser. That was materially different from a service independently sending its own automated requests to a target’s servers.

The same reasoning defeated Amazon’s likely success under California law. The remaining injunction factors also favored Perplexity: Amazon’s evidence of degraded shopping experiences and cybersecurity risks was limited, an injunction burdened a heavily developed product, and restraining conduct unlikely to violate either statute would reduce consumer choice and development of a nascent technology.

Key Takeaways

• For computer-access statutes, courts must identify who actually caused the challenged interaction with the server.
• An AI assistant acting locally at a user’s direction may be treated as the user’s tool rather than as the developer’s independent access.
• Website operators may still regulate their users through private terms of service, even when statutory computer-access claims are weak.

Why It Matters

This is an early appellate ruling on agentic-browser liability. Its user-versus-tool distinction will shape how platforms, AI developers, and courts analyze automated shopping, browsing, and data interactions under anti-hacking laws.