Amazon Challenges Perplexity's AI Agent Under CFAA

Amazon sued Perplexity AI in November 2025, alleging its Comet browser accessed Amazon.com accounts without authorization in violation of the CFAA. In March 2026, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against Perplexity, which the Ninth Circuit stayed pending appeal. The case tests whether legacy computer fraud laws apply to autonomous AI agents.

Amazon Challenges Perplexity's AI Agent Under CFAA According to court filings and reporting in Jones Day, IAPP, and Law360, Amazon sued Perplexity AI in November 2025, alleging that Perplexity's agentic browser Comet accessed Amazon.com accounts and systems without authorization in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act CFAA and California Penal Code Section 502 . Per Jones Day and other coverage, on March 9, 2026 Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Perplexity from using AI agents to access Amazon's systems and ordering destruction of data obtained from Amazon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on June 11, 2026 and the injunction remains stayed pending appeal, per court audio and Courthouse News Service reporting. Multiple amici have filed briefs; commentators and at least one panel judge question whether the CFAA is an appropriate doctrinal fit for autonomous AI agents International Center for Law & Economics, IAPP . What happened According to reporting and court filings summarized by Jones Day , IAPP , and Law360 , Amazon sued Perplexity AI in November 2025, alleging that Perplexity's agentic browser Comet accessed Amazon.com accounts and systems without authorization in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act CFAA and California Penal Code Section 502 . Per Jones Day, on March 9, 2026 Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Amazon's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding "strong evidence" that Perplexity continued accessing Amazon's systems after a cease-and-desist and had transmitted Amazon account data to Perplexity's servers. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending Perplexity's appeal. Ninth Circuit oral argument June 11, 2026 Per Courthouse News Service, a three-judge panel - Circuit Judges Milan Smith Jr. and Eric Tung, joined by District Judge John Hinderaker sitting by designation - heard oral argument in Seattle on June 11, 2026. Perplexity attorney Chris Michel of Quinn Emanuel argued: "Amazon seeks to stretch criminal statutes that prohibit computer hacking to sue Perplexity simply because Amazon wanted its own customers to access its website its preferred way." Amazon attorney Hagan Scotten countered that competitors with identical technical capabilities, such as Brave and Microsoft Edge, decline to enter Amazon's logged-in pages out of legal caution - distinguishing Comet as an agent, not a passive browser. Judge Hinderaker noted: "This case is difficult in part because we are dealing with a statute from 1986. It's not really built for these circumstances." The panel has not yet issued a written opinion. Editorial analysis - technical context The dispute centers on how courts apply legacy access statutes to software that acts autonomously on a user's behalf. Per Jones Day and IAPP, Ninth Circuit precedent such as Power Ventures v. Facebook 844 F.3d 1058 and related Supreme Court decisions frame the legal questions about authorization and revocation of access. Commentators at the International Center for Law & Economics argue that the CFAA's statutory language and enforcement history make it a blunt instrument for resolving disputes over agentic browsing and automated transactions. For practitioners building agentic integrations, these doctrinal issues translate into legal uncertainty about credentialed automation, detection-evasion behavior, and liability allocation among platform, agent provider, and end user. Amicus activity Multiple amicus briefs have been filed. The News/Media Alliance filed in support of Amazon on April 30, 2026, framing Comet's conduct as misrepresentation to gain access to password-protected pages per News/Media Alliance . Briefs supporting Perplexity have also been filed, per Law360. What to watch Observers should follow the Ninth Circuit's written opinion for how it frames: - •the meaning of "authorization" when a user provides credentials to an agent - •the relevance of platform technical measures and cease-and-desist communications - •any clarification on damages or injunctive standards for agentic access. Also monitor amicus briefs and any Supreme Court interest, because those filings signal which industries and rights holders view the case as precedent-setting. CourtListener hosts the oral-argument audio; subsequent reporting will update timing for any further stays or certiorari petitions Scoring Rationale Amazon v. Perplexity is a landmark test of whether a 1986 hacking statute applies to AI agents acting on explicit user authorization - a question a Ninth Circuit panel judge acknowledged the CFAA 'is not really built for.' A ruling on the merits will materially shape product design, platform access policies, and legal risk assessments for any team building agentic web integrations. Practice with real Retail & eCommerce data 90 SQL & Python problems · 15 industry datasets 250 free problems · No credit card See all Retail & eCommerce problems /problems/datasets/retail