The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a preliminary injunction that previously blocked Perplexity from accessing password-protected Amazon accounts. A three-judge panel determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed in its claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), as the court found no evidence that Perplexity accessed the systems without authorization.
The dispute centered on the Comet browser and its AI-powered Assistant, which performs tasks on Amazon at the user's direction. Despite Amazon's prior warnings to the Perplexity CEO that its products were not permitted to access the store, the court ruled that the AI agent acts as a tool for the user rather than an independent entity. The judges emphasized that the user, not the developer, is the one accessing the system.
The court clarified that AI agents are not considered persons under statutory law. While the ruling is limited to the interpretation of 'access' under the CFAA, legal experts suggest it highlights the importance of technical architecture in assessing liability. The degree of agent autonomy and developer control over interactions with third-party sites remains a critical factor for future legal inquiries.
The Ninth Circuit explicitly stated that this decision does not establish a new legal regime for agentic AI. The court declined to address broader liability issues, such as potential tort claims, focusing strictly on the specific interactions between the Assistant and Amazon.com as presented in the current case record.
