Perplexity’s AI shopping agent can remain on Amazon, at least for now. The ruling could also give other AI agents more room to shop, browse, and act on websites that would prefer to keep them out.
The decision does not end Amazon’s lawsuit, but its reasoning could influence future disputes over whether an AI agent acting for a person should be treated as the user or as an unauthorized third party.
The court lifts the block on Comet
The Ninth Circuit overturned an injunction issued by a California federal judge in March. The earlier order had temporarily prevented Perplexity from using Comet’s agentic shopping features on Amazon.
Amazon accused Perplexity of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing its systems without authorization. The retailer also said Comet created security risks and disguised itself as a standard Chrome browser to avoid detection.
The appeals court found that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, Reuters reported.
Why Perplexity won the appeal
The dispute largely turned on who was accessing Amazon’s servers.
Comet can navigate Amazon and complete purchases when directed by a user. Because the agent operates under that person’s instructions, the court concluded that the user accessed Amazon’s systems, rather than Perplexity itself.
Engadget said that the court also found an injunction against conduct unlikely to violate federal or California computer-access laws would not serve the public interest.
Amazon characterized Comet as an unauthorized automated visitor, while Perplexity presented it as a tool chosen by customers who already had permission to use Amazon.
The ruling has clear limits
The decision does not give every AI agent permission to access any website. It addressed a preliminary injunction and did not resolve every legal claim in Amazon’s lawsuit.
The ruling also does not establish that all AI-agent activity is lawful. Future cases may depend on how an agent identifies itself, what information it accesses, whether the user provided consent, what a platform’s terms require, and whether the software causes measurable harm.
The decision still gives AI developers a potentially useful argument. Software carrying out a user’s instructions may not automatically qualify as an outside intruder under computer-hacking laws.
What it means for online shopping
Shopping agents could weaken a retailer’s control over the buying journey.
Online stores influence purchases through search rankings, recommendations, sponsored placements, and other features built into their websites. An outside agent could bypass much of that interface, compare products for the user, and move directly toward a purchase.
The Next Web argued that such agents could threaten retailer-controlled advertising and recommendation systems.
For AI companies, the opportunity is to become the interface shoppers use across multiple stores. Retailers, meanwhile, face a choice between accommodating outside agents, finding other ways to restrict them, or directing customers toward first-party assistants they control.
Amazon’s case is not over
Amazon said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options. The company could seek another hearing or ask the Supreme Court to review the decision. Its underlying lawsuit will also continue in federal court.
Perplexity has retained the ability to operate its shopping agent during that fight. The broader issue remains unresolved: whether websites can decide which AI tools their users bring with them.
The answer could determine whether shopping agents become ordinary consumer tools or remain locked in recurring legal and technical battles with the platforms they are built to navigate.
Want to know more about the company behind Comet? Read our Perplexity AI Cheat Sheet to see how its “answer engine” stacks up against ChatGPT and Gemini.