A U.S. appeals court has cleared Perplexity’s AI shopping tools to resume operating on Amazon.com, overturning a lower‑court injunction that had temporarily blocked the startup’s Comet browser agent from helping users shop on the e‑commerce giant’s site. The decision marks an important early test of how courts will treat AI “agents” that act on users’ behalf inside large online marketplaces.
Ninth Circuit Overturns Amazon Injunction
On August 3, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had barred Perplexity AI Inc. from deploying its Comet shopping agent on Amazon’s platform. The panel concluded that Amazon is unlikely to succeed on its core claim under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a 1986 anti‑hacking law widely used in disputes over unauthorized access to websites and online services.
Reuters reports that the ruling allows Perplexity to again use its “agentic” AI shopping tools on Amazon while the underlying case returns to the district court for further proceedings. Bloomberg Law notes that Perplexity can immediately resume Comet’s Amazon functionality following the Ninth Circuit’s order. The appeals court’s decision does not resolve the entire lawsuit but changes the balance of power between the companies as they continue litigating.
Background: Amazon’s Lawsuit Against Perplexity’s Comet Agent
Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025, accusing the company of concealing its AI shopping agents and improperly accessing Amazon’s systems to place orders through users’ accounts. The complaint alleged violations of the CFAA and California’s computer crime statute, arguing that Perplexity’s tools effectively acted as automated bots that bypassed Amazon’s technical and contractual restrictions.
In March 2026, a federal judge in California granted Amazon’s request for a preliminary injunction, ordering Perplexity to stop using Comet to shop on Amazon while the case was pending. That order temporarily disabled Comet’s ability to log into Amazon accounts and complete purchases, forcing Perplexity to limit the agent’s functionality or risk contempt.
Perplexity appealed, and in March the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay, allowing the AI shopping agent to continue operating “for now” while the panel considered the injunction’s legality. Tuesday’s ruling goes further by overturning the injunction outright, concluding that Amazon had not met the standard required to obtain such extraordinary relief.
Court’s Key Finding: Users, Not Perplexity, Access Amazon’s Computers
The Ninth Circuit’s central reasoning turns on who is actually “accessing” Amazon’s computers when Comet is used. The panel held that when customers use Perplexity’s Comet browser agent to shop, it is the users themselves, not Perplexity, who connect to Amazon’s systems, log in and issue commands.
MLex reports that the court likened Comet to a conventional web browser such as Safari, saying that the AI agent is essentially a tool that users employ to visit Amazon, rather than a bot that autonomously penetrates Amazon’s network. Because the CFAA targets “access” to protected computers, the court concluded that Amazon’s theory—that Perplexity was accessing its computers without authorization—was unlikely to succeed when the access was initiated by consenting account holders.
RuntimeWire’s analysis underscores that the panel’s view significantly narrows the CFAA’s reach over browser‑based AI agents: if a tool operates client‑side and sends requests in the same way a standard browser does, courts may treat the user as the actor, not the toolmaker. The ruling also suggests that terms of service disputes may be better addressed through contract and platform‑governance mechanisms than through anti‑hacking statutes, at least on these facts.
Comet’s AI Shopping Tools Back on Amazon
Engadget reports that, with the injunction lifted, Perplexity can again allow users to employ Comet’s AI‑powered shopping capabilities on Amazon.com. Comet is designed to understand natural‑language instructions—such as “find me noise‑cancelling headphones under $200 that ship tomorrow”—and then navigate Amazon’s site, compare products and complete purchases through the user’s own account.
Yahoo Finance notes that the decision “allows Perplexity to use its AI shopping tools on Amazon’s platform” and that Comet’s return raises new questions about how Amazon will manage third‑party AI agents that operate within its marketplace. Amazon retains the ability to adjust APIs, deploy technical defenses, or update policies to restrict certain uses, but the CFAA route tested in this case has been weakened by the panel’s analysis.
Amazon’s Options: Rehearing, Supreme Court, and Contract Claims
The appeals court’s decision is not a final defeat for Amazon. As Engadget and Bloomberg Law emphasize, Amazon can still ask the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc or petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the panel’s ruling, though such steps are discretionary and time‑consuming. Amazon also continues to press other claims, including allegations that Perplexity violated contractual terms and misused Amazon’s services, which were not fully resolved by the CFAA analysis.
Media reports indicate that Amazon may pivot toward emphasizing terms of service and platform integrity arguments rather than relying primarily on anti‑hacking statutes. The company has long enforced strict rules against automated scraping and unauthorized automated ordering, and it can still treat violations as breaches of contract or abuse of its marketplace. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion simply signals that such disputes may not fit neatly within the CFAA’s framework when user consent and client‑side tools are involved.
Implications for AI Shopping Agents and Platform Control
The case is widely seen as a bellwether for how AI agents will be regulated on large e‑commerce platforms. AIWeekly notes that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning matters beyond Amazon and Perplexity because many emergent AI tools operate as browser agents that read pages, click buttons and manage workflows on users’ behalf. If courts treat those tools like browsers rather than bots, platform operators may need to rely more on API policies, rate limits and contractual enforcement than on criminal‑style anti‑hacking claims.
At the same time, the ruling does not grant AI agents a blanket right to access any site under any conditions. The panel’s analysis is tied to the present record: Comet acts through logged‑in users’ accounts, runs on the client side, and issues requests through normal web protocols, with no evidence of circumventing technical barriers beyond what a human user could do manually. Different facts—such as server‑side bots that spoof identities or bypass technical protections—could still trigger CFAA liability.
Legal commentators say the decision also underscores the importance of clear user consent and transparent tool design in AI commerce: agents that operate openly at the user’s direction, using their credentials, may be perceived differently from hidden or deceptive bots. For developers, that means interface and disclosure choices could affect not just user trust but legal risk.
The Road Ahead for Amazon and Perplexity
For now, Perplexity has won a significant procedural victory: its Comet agent can continue shopping on Amazon.com while the case proceeds, and the Ninth Circuit has cast doubt on Amazon’s primary CFAA theory. That win strengthens Perplexity’s position in ongoing settlement discussions or trial strategy and may encourage other AI start‑ups to explore “agentic” shopping and automation tools with more confidence. Amazon, meanwhile, faces renewed scrutiny over how it balances security, control of its marketplace and openness to third‑party innovation. Financial and legal analysts note that the company may need to clarify rules for AI‑driven tools, both to protect customers and to avoid further litigation that tests the boundaries of decades‑old computer‑crime statutes.
The broader question is whether this case marks the beginning of a new legal framework for AI agents online, where user‑centric tools are treated as extensions of individual browsing rather than independent actors—and where platform governance is negotiated more through contracts, APIs and technical controls than through anti‑hacking law. As Amazon and Perplexity return to court, other AI and e‑commerce companies will be watching closely to see how that framework evolves.
