A US appeals court has reopened a major path for Perplexity’s AI shopping agent on Amazon, while leaving the larger legal fight unresolved. The decision turns on a central question for agentic AI: when software acts for a person online, who is legally doing the accessing?
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned an injunction that had stopped Perplexity from using its agentic AI shopping tools on Amazon’s platform. According to Reuters, the court found that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity’s agents violated a federal computer fraud law.
Why the appeals court sided with Perplexity for now
The dispute focused on attribution. Amazon argued that Perplexity’s AI agents were entering Amazon systems in a way that violated legal limits on unauthorized access. The appeals court reached a different view at this stage of the case.
The law at issue prohibits accessing computers and obtaining information without permission. But the appeals court concluded that the people using the agents were the ones accessing Amazon’s platform. Perplexity, in the court’s view, was not itself the actor gaining access in the way Amazon alleged.
That distinction matters because Perplexity’s agentic AI shopping tools are designed to operate on a user’s behalf. The source describes these systems as tools that can plan, reason, browse, shop, and complete transactions with limited human oversight. In practical terms, the software can help users move through online shopping tasks that would otherwise require direct manual action.
The ruling does not end the case. It only removes the injunction that had blocked the tools from operating on Amazon while the litigation continues. The underlying claims have not been decided.
What Amazon alleged in the lawsuit
Amazon sued Perplexity in November. The company accused the startup of covertly accessing private Amazon customer accounts through its Comet browser and the AI agent built into it.
The agent can log into shopping accounts and place orders on behalf of users. Amazon’s complaint alleged security risks and said Perplexity had ignored repeated demands to stop.
Amazon’s position also included a broader argument about how third-party AI should interact with online platforms. The company said third-party AI must operate transparently and respect established APIs. It pointed to its own tools, including "Buy For Me" and the "Rufus" assistant.
That framing puts the conflict beyond a single shopping workflow. Amazon is arguing for control over how automated agents enter and use its platform. Perplexity is arguing that agents acting for users should not be treated as outsiders when those users have permission to access their own accounts.
How Perplexity responded
Perplexity rejected Amazon’s case. The startup called the lawsuit baseless and a "bald attempt" to keep Amazon customers away from Comet, because AI agents "don't have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with."
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas called Amazon’s conduct "bullying" and argued that agents acting on behalf of users should have the same rights as human users. Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer said, "Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want."
Amazon also signaled that it is not backing down. A spokesperson said, "We respectfully disagree with today's decision on the preliminary injunction," and added, "We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps."
Those statements show how sharply the two companies differ on the basic role of AI agents. One side emphasizes platform control, security, and authorized interfaces. The other emphasizes user choice and the idea that a tool acting for a customer should be treated like the customer’s own action.
The March injunction is now void
Before the appeals court ruling, a federal court in California had temporarily barred Perplexity from using agentic AI on Amazon. That March order came from Judge Maxine Chesney, who found "strong evidence" that Perplexity accessed password-protected accounts with users’ permission but without Amazon’s authorization.
The earlier order also required the startup to delete copies of Amazon data. With the appeals court’s reversal, the injunction is now void. But that does not mean Perplexity has won the full lawsuit, or that Amazon’s claims have disappeared.
The important change is procedural and immediate: Perplexity’s AI shopping tools are no longer blocked by that injunction. The case itself continues, and the final legal boundaries for agentic AI on commercial platforms remain unsettled.
Why this AI agent ruling matters
The source describes this as the first ruling by a US federal appeals court on whether AI agents can lawfully access online platforms on behalf of users. That makes the decision significant for more than Amazon and Perplexity.
Agentic systems are built to do more than answer questions. They can take actions across websites, including shopping and completing transactions. As these systems become more capable, courts and companies will have to draw lines around authorization, platform rules, user consent, and data access.
The business relationship between Amazon and Perplexity adds another layer. Perplexity is an AWS customer with commitments in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and Jeff Bezos is among the startup’s investors. Even with those ties, the dispute has become a test case for how AI agents may operate on major online platforms.
For now, the appeals court’s answer is limited but important. If a user accesses Amazon through an AI shopping agent, the court found Amazon is unlikely to show that Perplexity itself committed the alleged unauthorized access under the federal computer fraud law. The broader question of how far that principle extends is still waiting for the underlying case to be resolved.