Background
Amazon sued Perplexity after Perplexity released Comet, a browser with an optional AI Assistant that can perform user-directed tasks on websites, including Amazon.com. When a user activates the Assistant, it analyzes the browser view on the user’s machine; screenshots and related information may be sent to Perplexity’s servers, which return navigation instructions. Perplexity’s servers do not directly communicate with Amazon’s servers.
Amazon had told Perplexity that its AI products were not authorized to access the Amazon Store and objected to Perplexity’s failure to use a user-agent string that would identify AI-agent use and enable Amazon to block it. Amazon alleged violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). The Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction, and Perplexity appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded. Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the CFAA claim because, on the record before the court, Perplexity did not “access” Amazon’s computers. The court held that the Comet user accessed Amazon’s servers, using the Assistant as a tool to carry out specific acts; Perplexity’s receipt of browser screenshots and transmission of instructions did not itself establish that Perplexity gained entry to Amazon’s servers.
The court reached the same result under the CDAFA. Even assuming the California statute defines access more broadly, its relevant provision still focuses on a person who accesses or causes access without permission. On these facts, the user—not Perplexity—accessed Amazon using the AI tool. The court emphasized that its holding was limited to the CFAA and CDAFA access issue on this record and did not create a general legal regime for agentic AI or resolve potential liability under other theories.
Key Takeaways
- For purposes of the CFAA, Perplexity was unlikely to have accessed Amazon’s computers merely because its servers received screenshots and sent instructions to an AI tool operating in a user’s browser.
- The court applied the same reasoning to Amazon’s CDAFA claim, concluding that the user was the person accessing Amazon.
- Amazon’s asserted goodwill and cybersecurity harms were too weak or attenuated on this record to support preliminary relief, while the equities and public interest favored Perplexity.
Why It Matters
The decision treats an AI browser assistant, on the facts presented, as a tool used by the browser user rather than as Perplexity itself entering the website operator’s computers. It also reflects the Ninth Circuit’s caution against extending the CFAA beyond its anti-hacking purpose through a novel theory of AI-agent access.
The ruling does not prevent Amazon from regulating access through its private terms of service. It instead limits Amazon’s ability, on this record, to obtain an injunction under the CFAA and CDAFA against Comet’s Assistant.