Amazon Loses Injunction Bid, Perplexity AI Shopping Tool Unblocked
Claire Weston
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary injunction against Perplexity's AI shopping tool on Amazon, ruling that the user — not Perplexity — is the party accessing the platform. This is the first federal appellate ruling on whether AI agents can legally access online platforms, setting a landmark for the entire agentic-AI industry.
What was this lawsuit actually about?
Amazon sued Perplexity last November, alleging its Comet browser and associated AI agents secretly accessed users' Amazon accounts and placed orders on their behalf, creating a security risk.
In March, a California federal judge found Amazon had presented "strong evidence" that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA — the core U.S. federal anti-hacking law) and issued a temporary injunction.
This means → Perplexity's AI shopping features were shut down by court order. The central question: does an AI agent operating a user's account count as "unauthorized access"?
Why did the appeals court overturn the ban?
The Ninth Circuit's core logic boils down to one point: under the CFAA, the party "accessing" Amazon's platform is the user who authorized the AI agent — not Perplexity itself.
In plain terms = a user choosing to let an AI tool place orders is like choosing which browser to use — the tool is not an intruder.
The court concluded Amazon was "not likely to succeed" on its CFAA claim, and the injunction was lifted.
Why does this ruling matter for the whole industry?
This is the first time a U.S. federal appeals court has ruled on whether AI agents can legally access third-party platforms under user authorization. Before this, the question had zero legal precedent.
This means → every company building agentic AI — tools that browse, compare prices, and place orders for users — now has a first federal-level legal foothold.
This reflects a court framing AI agents as extensions of the user, not independent "third-party intruders." If that framing holds in subsequent rulings, it will fundamentally define the legal operating space for the agentic-AI industry.
What comes next for both sides?
Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said: "We will continue to fight for users' right to choose any AI tool." Perplexity previously called Amazon's lawsuit a "brazen" attempt to block users from using Comet.
Perplexity also argued that AI agents "don't have eyeballs to see the ads Amazon bombards users with" — implying Amazon's real concern is that its ad-revenue model gets bypassed.
But the case is not over: the injunction was overturned, yet no final judgment has been reached. Whether Amazon can find a new legal theory beyond the CFAA in subsequent proceedings is the next critical test.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.