--- title: AI Agents Can Shop on Amazon Again After a US Appeals Court Ruling description: The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction against Perplexity's Comet shopping agent, ruling the user rather than Perplexity accesses Amazon under the CFAA. author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief) updated: 2026-08-05T19:25:23.948Z canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/ninth-circuit-perplexity-comet-amazon-cfaa-ruling image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/ai-shopping-agent-amazon-ruling-106890.webp categories: Artificial Intelligence content_type: News region: United States publication: Sovereign Magazine schema_type: Article --- When an AI agent shops on Amazon for you, the one accessing Amazon's computers is you, not the company that made the agent. A three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reached that conclusion on Tuesday and [vacated a preliminary injunction](https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-lifts-block-on-ai-powered-shopping-assistant/) that had restricted Perplexity AI's Comet browser, which can compare products, prices and reviews and complete purchases on Amazon.com on a user's behalf. The panel found the district court abused its discretion when it ruled Amazon was likely to succeed on its claim that Comet violates the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The case goes back to the district court, and the underlying dispute between the two companies has not been decided. ## The Panel Put the Act of Access on the User Circuit Judge Milan Smith Jr., writing for the panel, framed the question as whether Perplexity uses Comet's Assistant to access Amazon's computers. “On the facts before us, we answer no,” Smith wrote. “It is the user who ‘accesses’ Amazon's computers, with the help of the Assistant to carry out specific acts on Amazon.com.” Perplexity receives screenshots of the user's browser and sends instructions back to the Assistant, Smith wrote, but those activities by themselves do not mean the company has gained entry to Amazon's servers. On the California claim he wrote that even if access under that statute is broader than the federal definition, the inquiry still turns on who is doing the accessing, and the panel reached the same answer. Smith also wrote that Amazon's argument, if accepted, “could expose users themselves to criminal liability” for facilitating what Amazon says is Perplexity's unauthorized access. The panel reversed the lower court on the remaining injunction factors too, finding Amazon had not shown irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor Perplexity. ## The Injunction Amazon Won in March Is Now Void Perplexity, a San Francisco startup valued at $21 billion as of early this year, launched Comet last year, letting customers search password-protected sites including amazon.com and buy from the store without contacting Amazon, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Amazon sued in November, alleging security risks and saying Perplexity had ignored repeated demands to stop. Perplexity called the lawsuit baseless. In March, Senior US District Judge Maxine Chesney of San Francisco granted the injunction, writing that Amazon had strong evidence that Comet “accesses with the Amazon user's permission, but without authorization by Amazon, the user's password-protected account,” obtaining private account information that was then sent to Perplexity's servers to carry out the user's tasks. Her order also required Perplexity to delete copies of Amazon data. A separate Ninth Circuit panel had already put the injunction on hold during the appeal. ## The Court Set a Narrow Limit on What It Decided The panel confined its ruling to access as defined by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal anti-hacking law, as applied to how the Assistant interacted with Amazon.com on the record before it, and said the decision does not “establish a new legal regime governing agentic AI.” It is still the first ruling by a US federal appeals court on whether AI agents can lawfully reach online platforms on behalf of users. Smith was joined by Circuit Judge Eric Tung and District Judge John Hinderaker of the District of Arizona, sitting by designation, and the panel ruled 3-0. Amazon says it disagrees with the ruling and is evaluating its next steps, which could include asking the full Ninth Circuit for a rehearing before a larger panel or appealing to the US Supreme Court. ## Publishers Backed Amazon, Civil Liberties Groups Backed Perplexity Amazon drew support from the News/Media Alliance, which represents more than 2,200 US publishers. Its attorney Michael Elkin argued in a filing that allowing access to password-protected parts of a website without the owner's permission could strip “entire industries of critical protections from harmful, unauthorized incursions into their protected computer systems,” and would undermine the ability of news publishers and other businesses to earn the revenue they need in the digital economy. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sided with Perplexity, arguing that its browser resembles the digital tools reporters and scholars already use. Esha Bhandari of the ACLU Foundation of New York told the court that imposing liability on Perplexity “would expose journalists and researchers to civil and criminal penalties for using the digital tools of their trade.” Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the ruling “should be helpful in pushing back against use of the CFAA to mask anti-privacy and anti-competitive behavior.” Jesse Dwyer, Perplexity's chief communications officer, says the company “will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want.” Amazon argues that AI agents reaching its store and private account information on a customer's behalf must identify themselves, and points to its own Buy For Me feature and Rufus assistant. Perplexity chief executive Aravind Srinivas has called Amazon's action “bullying” and says agents acting for users should have the same rights as the users themselves. ## FAQ **Q: What is Perplexity's Comet browser?** Comet is an AI browser from Perplexity, launched last year, that can search password-protected sites on a user's behalf, including Amazon.com, comparing products, prices and reviews or completing a purchase without the user working the site directly. **Q: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?** It is a 1986 federal anti-hacking law that prohibits accessing a computer without authorization. Amazon argued Comet's access to its store violates it, and the Ninth Circuit panel found Amazon unlikely to succeed on that claim because the user, not Perplexity, is the one accessing Amazon. **Q: What happens next in the case?** The case returns to the district court, where the underlying lawsuit has not been decided. Amazon says it is evaluating its next steps, which could include seeking a rehearing before a larger Ninth Circuit panel or an appeal to the US Supreme Court.