For a deeper dive into this story, watch my video on LinkedIn where I breakdown the merits of Amazon's lawsuit and share why I originally thought Amazon and Perplexity were BOTH in the wrong, but later changed my opinion to side completely with Amazon.
Last week Amazon filed a lawsuit against Perplexity after sending a cease and desist letter demanding that they block their AI browser Comet from shopping on Amazon.com or its mobile app. Following receipt of the letter, Perplexity released a public statement in which they called it Amazon's “first legal salvo against an AI company” and a “threat to all Internet users.”
Perplexity went on to compare software to a tool “like a wrench,” and then compared agentic AI to labor — trying to draw the comparison that Amazon doesn't have the right to stop you from owning wrenches or hiring labor to act as an assistant on your behalf. They wrote:
“The law is clear that large corporations have no right to stop you from owning wrenches. Today, Amazon announced it does not believe in your right to hire labor, to have an assistant or an employee acting on your behalf. This isn’t a reasonable legal position, it’s a bully tactic to scare disruptive companies like Perplexity out of making life better for people. “
They went on to claim that Amazon's sole motivation is to keep you shopping directly on their website or mobile app so that they can continue to serve you ads, which is a logical accusation to make, given Amazon's $60B advertising business that it needs to protect.
Initially after reading the post, I related with some of Perplexity's arguments, especially the part about how “large corporations use legal threats and intimidation to block innovation and make life worse for people.” It happens all the time in Big Tech to the detriment of the industry and consumers. They pulled on my emotional strings with that one.
However I disagreed with Perplexity's stance on “AI rights” when they wrote:
“Your AI assistant must be indistinguishable from you. When Comet Assistant visits a website, it does so with your credentials, your permissions, and your rights… Publishers and corporations have no right to discriminate against users based on which AI they've chosen to represent them.”
That's where I called bullshit. AI has no rights.
If Amazon wants to block Perplexity from accessing their website, that's 100% their prerogative. Every marketplace, store, and website should have the same “rights” to block non-human users. Websites can already choose to function or not function on certain browsers, so why can't they choose not to function for certain AI?
AI shopping is unproven. For all we know it leads to more erroneous purchases and higher return rates. Amazon doesn't want to be the Guinea pig and beta test your error-prone AI shopping feature, nor should they have to.
Perplexity is acting like AI is a protected class, as if Amazon was like “NO JEWS CAN SHOP AT AMAZON!” — but AI doesn't have any rights and doesn't deserve any protections.
After reading Perplexity's post, at first I thought:
“Amazon is right that they should be able to block any AI bots they want, but this isn't a battle for the court room. If Amazon wants to block Perplexity from shopping on their website, they need to figure out how to do so with technology.”
Then I read Amazon's cease and desist letter and completely changed my tune.
As it turns out, Amazon tried to block Perplexity's AI agents with technology, and even spoke to the company about its wishes to do so, but instead of complying, Perplexity took concerted effort to disguise Comet as a Google Chrome browser, which Amazon claims is in violation of multiple Internet and computer fraud laws.
Amazon says it “shares the industry's excitement about AI innovations,” but “transparency is critical because it protects a service provider's right to monitor AI agents and restrict conduct that degrades the customer shopping experience, erodes customer trust, and creates security risks for our customers' private data.”
The letter goes on to say that “Perplexity has refused to operate transparently” despite multiple requests by Amazon to stop its undisclosed agentic activities, which violate Amazon's Conditions of Use.
Throughout the letter, Amazon references the risks that third-party AI agents bring to the customer experience and security of their shoppers, as well as multiple laws that Perplexity is breaking by not abiding my Amazon's request and attempting to circumvent its firewalls.
Amazon isn't the only company that wants to protect its business model against AI.
Businesses across all types of industries want the same, including myself and other publishers. We don't want AI scraping our content and bypassing our websites or newsletter subscriptions. That means less traffic and ad revenue — no different than a retail site.
Everyone's got a business model that they should be able to defend against AI if they so choose. And that's ultimately where Perplexity gets it all wrong. AI doesn't have any rights that need protecting… we the people do.
What are your thoughts? Join the conversation on LinkedIn.