The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has thrown out a preliminary injunction that prevented Perplexity’s Comet AI browser from interacting with Amazon.com. In a written opinion, the panel concluded that Amazon’s allegation that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) did not satisfy the statute’s core requirements.
Under the CFAA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally accessed a protected computer without authorization, obtained information, and caused a loss of at least $5,000 in any one‑year period. The court said those elements were missing. Comet, Perplexity’s AI‑enabled browser, requires a user to direct it to Amazon’s site. That user, not the software provider, is the party actually accessing Amazon’s servers. Because Perplexity does not itself initiate the connection, the court found no actionable violation.
Judge Michael Daly, writing for the majority, warned that “an injunction against conduct that likely does not violate the CFAA would not serve the public interest.” The opinion also noted that Amazon had not demonstrated that allowing Perplexity to offer shopping capabilities would cause the type of concrete harm required for injunctive relief.
Amazon responded to the ruling with a brief statement to Engadget, calling the decision “disappointing” and saying the company “remains confident in its case and is evaluating next steps.” The retailer had sent Perplexity a cease‑and‑desist letter in November 2025, demanding that the AI browser be blocked from accessing Amazon’s storefront. The letter referenced a 2024 agreement in which both parties paused “agentic shopping” features. Perplexity allegedly broke that pause by re‑enabling the function and masking Comet as a standard Chrome browser, prompting Amazon to file suit in March 2026.
The district court in San Francisco granted a temporary injunction shortly after the complaint was filed, ordering Perplexity to halt the feature while the case proceeded. The Ninth Circuit’s reversal removes that order but does not end the litigation. Amazon can seek a rehearing before the appeals panel or petition the Supreme Court for review. Regardless of any further appellate moves, the underlying lawsuit will continue in the original federal court, where Amazon can again argue that Perplexity’s technology infringes on its rights.
Legal analysts note that the decision underscores the difficulty of applying the CFAA to cloud‑based services that act as intermediaries rather than direct actors. By placing the responsibility on the end user, the court may set a precedent that limits the scope of future injunctions aimed at AI‑driven tools that interact with third‑party sites.
For now, Perplexity’s Comet browser can resume normal operation on Amazon’s site, and consumers can once again use the AI assistant to compare products, track prices and generate purchase recommendations. The broader dispute over how AI agents should navigate e‑commerce platforms, however, remains unresolved and is likely to surface in courtrooms for months to come.
Questo articolo è stato scritto con l'assistenza dell'IA.
News Factory APP - notizie agentiche per potenziare il tuo SEO e AEO.