A federal appeals fight over Amazon and Perplexity could set the first real limit on AI agents that keep going after a website says no.
Quick Take
- Amazon says Perplexity’s Comet agent kept accessing protected Amazon pages after a cease-and-desist letter and technical blocks.[6][7]
- A district court granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit later stayed that order pending appeal.[2][4][8]
- Perplexity says Comet acts as a personal assistant for the user, so the user’s permission should count.[6][17][18]
- Judges at oral argument questioned whether the user or Perplexity’s system was the real accessor.[1]
- The case now turns on whether user delegation can beat a site owner’s right to control password-protected access.[5][6]
Amazon’s Core Claim
Amazon’s case rests on a simple rule: a user cannot hand software a right the site owner never gave. Public reporting says Judge Maxine Chesney found strong evidence that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act after Amazon warned it and blocked access.[3][4][9] Those reports also say Amazon targeted Comet with technical countermeasures, and Perplexity responded with an update within 24 hours.
That sequence matters because it makes the dispute look less like ordinary browsing and more like deliberate evasion. The News/Media Alliance, which filed an amicus brief, says Perplexity used misrepresentation to reach password-protected areas despite Amazon’s express ban and its technical blocking tools.[5] The brief also argues that users cannot pass along access rights to protected areas once the site owner has forbidden that activity.[5] That theory gives Amazon a cleaner claim than a bare complaint about automation.
Perplexity’s Defense
Perplexity says Comet is a browser-based personal assistant that works only with user permission.[6][17][18] Its public response frames Amazon’s demand as an attempt to stop people from using their own AI assistant on Amazon, not to stop theft or hacking.[14] Supporters of that view argue the user remains the principal, while Comet is only the tool carrying out the user’s request.[1][2] That argument fits a common-sense view many readers will recognize.
Even so, the public record here does not give Perplexity a clean factual answer to every charge. The materials do not show a forensic rebuttal proving that Comet did not keep going after Amazon’s block, or that the update did not restore access after a technical barrier went up.[5][6][7] The available sources also do not include Perplexity’s appellate briefs or a final merits ruling. So its defense remains a live theory, not a judicial win on the facts.
Why the Case Matters
This case is bigger than one shopping assistant. It asks whether a website can draw a hard line around password-protected pages and then enforce that line against software acting for a user.[1][2][5][6] If the court sides with Amazon, platform owners will likely lean harder on access controls, cease-and-desist letters, and technical blocks. If the court sides with Perplexity, AI agents may gain wider room to act as user delegates online.
Geoffrey Manne and Kristian Stout have a terrific essay out at Truth on the Market on Amazon v. Perplexity, shopping bots, and the CFAA.
The case asks a very modern question: what happens when an AI agent browses a site on behalf of a user after the platform has tried to block…
— Gregory Dickinson (@gmdickinson) June 15, 2026
The oral argument also showed that the panel was not treating this as a simple bot case. The transcript excerpt reflects concern over whether there is any real technological link from Perplexity to Amazon, or whether only the user was accessing the site.[1] That question goes to the heart of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act fight. It also explains why this dispute has drawn attention from the Knight First Amendment Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, both of which warn that a broad ruling could chill online tools and user control.[6][7]
What Happens Next
The Ninth Circuit docket shows the appeal was fully briefed and set for argument, but the materials provided here do not show a final decision.[8] That means the law is still unsettled on whether an AI agent can inherit a user’s authorization when a site owner says no. For now, Amazon has a strong narrative about blocked access and alleged circumvention, while Perplexity has a strong policy argument about user autonomy. The court must decide which one the law protects.
Sources:
[1] Web – AI Agents and the CFAA: Amazon.Com Services v. Perplexity AI
[2] YouTube – 26-1444 Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
[3] Web – Amazon v. Perplexity: The CFAA Case That Decides Whether AI …
[4] Web – WarGames, Shopping Bots, and the Statute Trap – Truth on the Market
[5] Web – WarGames, Shopping Bots, and the Statute Trap: The CFAA and …
[6] Web – News/Media Alliance Files Amicus Brief in Amazon v. Perplexity
[7] Web – Amazon v. Perplexity AI – | Knight First Amendment Institute
[8] Web – Amazon v. Perplexity | American Civil Liberties Union
[9] Web – Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. 26-1444
[14] Web – Perplexity AI accuses Amazon of bullying with Comet legal threat
[17] Web – Perplexity AI Upgrades Comet Browser with Autonomous AI Agent
[18] Web – Comet Terms of Service – Perplexity
