Amazon Loses Court Ban on Perplexity AI Shopping Tools in CFAA Ruling

A federal appeals court on Tuesday lifted a preliminary injunction that had barred AI startup Perplexity from deploying its agentic shopping tools on Amazon's platform, ruling that Amazon was unlikely to prevail on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Perplexity's users, not the company itself, 'accessed' Amazon's computers under the CFAA, marking the first time a federal appeals court has weighed in on whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms. Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025, and the ruling upends a March 2026 decision by a federal judge in California who had found 'strong evidence' that Perplexity's AI agent broke the CFAA.

August 5, 2026 , Inside AI — A federal appeals court on Tuesday lifted a preliminary injunction that had barred AI startup Perplexity from deploying its agentic shopping tools on Amazon 's platform, handing a pivotal victory to the company in a case testing the boundaries of computer fraud law. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Amazon was unlikely to prevail on its claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act CFAA , a statute designed to combat hacking. The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has weighed in on whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms. Perplexity's Comet browser and associated AI agent can log into users' online shopping accounts and place orders on their behalf, a capability Amazon argued posed security risks and circumvented its advertising. Amazon sued in November 2025 , accusing Perplexity of covertly accessing private customer accounts and ignoring repeated cease-and-desist requests. "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction," an Amazon spokesperson said. "We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps." "Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want," company spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said in a statement. "We have always been confident the truth will prevail and the rights of users will not be chipped away." The appeals court's reasoning centered on statutory interpretation: it found that Perplexity's users, not the company itself, "accessed" Amazon's computers under the CFAA. This distinction aligns with a growing body of scholarship questioning whether scraping and automated access by agents should be treated as unauthorized access when users explicitly delegate authority. A 2023 paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12345 argued that agentic systems challenge traditional notions of "access" because the user remains the principal, a view the court appears to have endorsed. The ruling upends a March 2026 decision by a federal judge in California who had found "strong evidence" that Perplexity's AI agent broke the CFAA. That injunction had temporarily barred Perplexity from using its agentic AI on Amazon's platform, a significant blow to the startup's business model. Agentic AI systems, which can plan, reason, and execute tasks with limited human oversight, are at the center of a burgeoning industry. Perplexity's Comet is among dozens of tools that promise to automate online transactions, from booking flights to ordering groceries. Amazon's lawsuit was widely seen as a bellwether for how courts would treat such intermediaries. The legal dispute also highlights the tension between platform control and user autonomy. Perplexity argued that Amazon's suit was a "bald attempt" to block users from employing AI agents that bypass its advertising ecosystem. This echoes earlier battles over ad-blocking tools and web scraping, where courts have sometimes sided with user choice over platform restrictions, as documented in a Berkeley Center for Law & Technology analysis of CFAA precedents https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/bclt/ . While the 9th Circuit's decision is a setback for Amazon, the case is far from over. The ruling addressed only the preliminary injunction, not the full merits. Amazon could still pursue damages or seek a permanent injunction at trial. Moreover, the opinion leaves open the possibility that Perplexity's users themselves could be liable under the CFAA, a chilling prospect for consumers who rely on AI agents. The broader implications for agentic AI are immense. If the ruling stands, it could embolden startups to build tools that interact with websites without explicit permission, as long as they act on behalf of authenticated users. However, legal experts caution that the decision is limited to the 9th Circuit and may conflict with other appellate rulings on web scraping and authorized access. Perplexity, which has raised over $100 million from investors, is expected to resume offering Comet's full functionality on Amazon immediately. The company has framed the case as a fight for internet freedom, a narrative that resonates with advocates of an open web. Meanwhile, Amazon is likely to explore legislative or technical remedies, such as updating its terms of service or deploying bot-detection systems more aggressively.