Perplexity Seeks Dismissal of Amazon AI-Agent Suit After Appeals Court Ruling

Perplexity is asking a U.S. judge to dismiss Amazon’s lawsuit over its Comet shopping agent, arguing that an appeals court has already resolved the case’s central access question in its favor. The motion turns a narrow ruling about a user’s browser into an early test of whether platforms can use anti-hacking laws to control AI agents acting at a customer’s direction.

Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025 under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. Amazon alleges that Comet’s shopping agent violates those laws; Perplexity now argues Amazon cannot show the unauthorized access the statutes require.

The ruling Perplexity is relying on

The Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction on August 4 that had barred Perplexity from using its agentic browser technology on Amazon.com, and sent the case back for further proceedings. On the record before it, the court held that the user’s browser, rather than Perplexity, communicated with Amazon’s servers and accessed Amazon’s computers.

This case asks whether a dominant online platform can turn a criminal hacking statute into a tool for policing how its customers use the internet.

Perplexity, in its dismissal argument

Perplexity’s position rests on Comet’s architecture. Its Assistant ran through the user’s local browser, sent screenshots from that computer to Perplexity’s servers, then received navigation instructions back from those servers. That did not establish that Perplexity itself had entered Amazon’s servers, according to the appellate court’s analysis.

A decision about access, not a blanket pass

The ruling did not treat the Assistant as a separate legal actor. For the CFAA access provision, the court called it “a tool, not a person.” But that conclusion was tied to the facts before the court, not a general exemption for AI agents or their providers.

The Ninth Circuit expressly left open whether Perplexity might face liability if the provider exercised greater control, communicated directly with Amazon’s servers, independently initiated activity, controlled credentials, or bypassed technical restrictions. Those unresolved possibilities give Amazon room to contest whether its case fits the appellate record Perplexity invokes.

Platform rules remain a separate lever

Even while finding Amazon unlikely to prevail on its existing CFAA and CDAFA theories, the court said Amazon could still regulate agentic access through private terms of service. The immediate legal question, then, is narrower than whether Amazon can set rules for automated shopping: it is whether the anti-hacking claims survive this particular browser design and factual record.

Perplexity’s dismissal request has not settled the lawsuit. Its importance lies in the line it asks the court to enforce: when a user directs an AI tool from a local browser, the provider says the user—not the AI company—is the party accessing the website. The next proceedings will show how firmly that line holds.