A federal court reversed an injunction against Perplexity’s Comet agent. Judges found no violation of anti-hacking law. The decision could impact AI access to major e-commerce platforms.
Media and publishing professionals tracking AI’s role in commerce should note a major legal development: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned an injunction that barred Perplexity’s Comet shopping agent from operating on Amazon. The panel ruled that Perplexity did not breach the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a key anti-hacking statute, by enabling users to shop on Amazon through its AI-powered assistant.
The appellate judges determined that it was Amazon users-not Perplexity itself-who accessed Amazon’s servers, even when using the Comet agent. The court’s opinion stated that Perplexity’s activities, such as receiving browser screenshots and sending instructions to its assistant, did not constitute unauthorized access to Amazon’s systems. This decision reverses a March ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney, who had sided with Amazon’s argument that Perplexity’s actions likely violated the 1986 law by bypassing Amazon’s authorization protocols.
The dispute began in November, when Amazon accused Perplexity of using Comet to shop and make purchases on behalf of users, despite Amazon’s technical blocks and cease-and-desist demands. Judge Chesney’s injunction not only banned Comet from Amazon.com but also ordered Perplexity to destroy any data obtained through the agent. Perplexity appealed, and the 9th Circuit paused the injunction while reviewing the case.
Perplexity argued that its users, not the company itself, were the ones accessing Amazon, likening the situation to a Safari user browsing Amazon not being equivalent to Apple accessing the site. Amazon countered that users were merely intermediaries, and that Perplexity’s servers were orchestrating the activity. The appellate panel rejected Amazon’s analogy, stating that holding Perplexity liable would require a significant reinterpretation of the anti-hacking law’s intent.
The case attracted attention from digital rights groups and industry stakeholders. Organizations like Mozilla and the Electronic Frontier Foundation supported Perplexity, warning that a broad reading of the law could undermine open internet principles. Meanwhile, news industry group Digital Content Next sided with Amazon, arguing that publishers should not be compelled to allow AI agents unfettered access. The legal debate echoes broader industry concerns about AI and platform access, as seen in other high-profile disputes such as the recent push by UK publishers to charge AI companies for content scraping.
Amazon has stated its disagreement with the appellate decision and is considering further legal options. Perplexity, for its part, has pledged to continue advocating for user choice in AI tools and online access.
