Perplexity Wins Landmark Victory Against Amazon at Intersection of Agentic AI and E-Commerce

John is joined by Daniel C. Posner, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Renita N. Sharma, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Together, they discuss the recent victory secured by a team led by John, Dan, and Renita in the Amazon v. Perplexity case before the Ninth Circuit. The case addressed how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) applies to agentic AI.

Perplexity’s Comet browser includes an AI assistant that performs multi-step tasks for users, including shopping on Amazon. Amazon objected because purchases made through the assistant may bypass Amazon’s advertising and upselling opportunities. Amazon sued under the CFAA and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA).

The CFAA is the primary federal anti-hacking statute. To establish a violation, a plaintiff must prove that a person intentionally accessed a computer without authorization, obtained information through that access, and caused the plaintiff to suffer losses of at least $5,000. The CFAA is also a criminal statute, so case law has emphasized that it must be construed narrowly. The CDAFA is substantially similar to the CFAA, except it does not require proof of $5,000 in losses. CDAFA and CFAA claims typically rise and fall together.

Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction almost immediately after filing its complaint. Amazon argued that Perplexity intentionally accessed its computers without authorization after Amazon expressly told Perplexity not to send its agents to Amazon’s website. Perplexity responded that its servers never directly accessed Amazon’s servers. Instead, the Comet browser resides on the user’s computer and acts only when the user instructs it to perform a task. The user’s computer communicates separately with Amazon and Perplexity, much as a conventional browser, such as Apple’s Safari, facilitates access without Apple itself accessing the website. Perplexity also argued that it did not obtain any information from Amazon or cause any cognizable damages.

Although the district court granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit initially stayed and then reversed that decision, holding that Perplexity had not “accessed” Amazon’s computers within the meaning of the CFAA. The court examined the technical architecture of the Comet browser and the broader principle that agentic AI, however sophisticated, remains a tool operated by a person. Because the user directs the assistant, the user—not Perplexity or the AI itself—is the relevant actor. In light of its ruling on access, the Ninth Circuit did not need to decide whether any access was unauthorized, whether Perplexity obtained information from Amazon, or whether Amazon suffered cognizable damages.

The decision is likely to become an important early precedent governing agentic AI. Future cases could raise additional issues as AI agents become more autonomous, circumvent safeguards, enter into contracts on unfavorable terms, cause tortious harm, or are jointly controlled by users and developers. The ruling could also have implications for journalists and researchers who use automated tools to gather publicly available information online.