Perplexity can continue operating its shopping agents on Amazon’s marketplaces after the Ninth Circuit overturned a preliminary injunction that had barred it from doing so earlier this year. The appeals court also found Amazon unlikely to win its claim that the agents broke a federal anti-hacking law.
In case you missed what’s been going on, here’s a recap:
- November 2025 – Amazon sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter and then sued, alleging that Perplexity’s Comet browser covertly accessed customer accounts and disguised its automated traffic as a standard browser, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Amazon’s TOS. Perplexity argued that its software was a tool “like a wrench,” and that “large corporations have no right to stop you from owning wrenches.” It also argued that Amazon’s real issue was that it couldn’t shove its advertising down users’ throats if agents did the shopping. See my full write-up about the case.
- March 2026 – Amazon won a temporary federal injunction against Perplexity to block Comet from accessing password-protected areas to make purchases after Judge Chesney ruled that the retailer provided strong evidence of unauthorized access. However, a week later, a U.S. appeals court suspended the ruling and Perplexity was given permission to re-engage in the practice.
- April 2026 – Perplexity’s appellate brief argued that Amazon showed no evidence of harm after eight months of the agent operating, and that account holders authorized the access themselves.
- June 2026 – The Ninth Circuit heard arguments from both sides that tested the limits and relevancy of the 1986 CFAA.
- August 2026 – Last week, the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction, determining that Perplexity’s users, not Perplexity, were the ones accessing Amazon. Basically, Perplexity’s wrench argument won the case.
Amazon said:
“We respectfully disagree with today’s decision on the preliminary injunction. We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps.”
Perplexity said:
“Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want. We have always been confident the truth will prevail and the rights of users will not be chipped away.”
Did the courts just decide that website owners have no say in whether AI agents can access and shop on their platforms? Because if so, that feels like a dangerous precedent. As a website or app developer, I can build my software to only work on certain browsers or operating systems, but I have to allow all AI agents into my home?
The reality is that the merits of this case are blurry on both sides.
The fact that Amazon is having to argue their case around a 1986 computer hacking law, and that Perplexity has to compare its AI agents to wrenches, means that we don’t have proper laws in place to regulate this new chapter of commerce.
When this case first dropped last year, I thought both companies were in the wrong. Then I learned more about the case and sided with Amazon. Now I’m back to believing that both are wrong again. Or more clearly, there is no “right.” We’re arguing “right” or “wrong” against Stone Age laws that are only loosely relevant to the matter at hand, but are all that Amazon and Perplexity legally have to work with. That’s the bigger problem that this case has brought to light.
