Amazon Challenges Perplexity's AI Agent Under CFAA

According to reporting and court filings summarized by Jones Day, IAPP, and Law360, Amazon sued Perplexity AI in November 2025, alleging that Perplexity's agentic browser Comet accessed Amazon.com accounts and systems without authorization in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California Penal Code Section 502. Per Jones Day, on March 9, 2026 Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Amazon's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding "strong evidence" that Perplexity continued accessing Amazon's systems after a cease-and-desist and had transmitted Amazon account data to Perplexity's servers. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending Perplexity's appeal.

Per Courthouse News Service, a three-judge panel - Circuit Judges Milan Smith Jr. and Eric Tung, joined by District Judge John Hinderaker sitting by designation - heard oral argument in Seattle on June 11, 2026. Perplexity attorney Chris Michel of Quinn Emanuel argued: "Amazon seeks to stretch criminal statutes that prohibit computer hacking to sue Perplexity simply because Amazon wanted its own customers to access its website its preferred way." Amazon attorney Hagan Scotten countered that competitors with identical technical capabilities, such as Brave and Microsoft Edge, decline to enter Amazon's logged-in pages out of legal caution - distinguishing Comet as an agent, not a passive browser. Judge Hinderaker noted: "This case is difficult in part because we are dealing with a statute from 1986. It's not really built for these circumstances." The panel has not yet issued a written opinion.

The dispute centers on how courts apply legacy access statutes to software that acts autonomously on a user's behalf. Per Jones Day and IAPP, Ninth Circuit precedent such as Power Ventures v. Facebook (844 F.3d 1058) and related Supreme Court decisions frame the legal questions about authorization and revocation of access. Commentators at the International Center for Law & Economics argue that the CFAA's statutory language and enforcement history make it a blunt instrument for resolving disputes over agentic browsing and automated transactions. For practitioners building agentic integrations, these doctrinal issues translate into legal uncertainty about credentialed automation, detection-evasion behavior, and liability allocation among platform, agent provider, and end user.

Multiple amicus briefs have been filed. The News/Media Alliance filed in support of Amazon on April 30, 2026, framing Comet's conduct as misrepresentation to gain access to password-protected pages (per News/Media Alliance). Briefs supporting Perplexity have also been filed, per Law360.

Observers should follow the Ninth Circuit's written opinion for how it frames:

• •the meaning of "authorization" when a user provides credentials to an agent
• •the relevance of platform technical measures and cease-and-desist communications
• •any clarification on damages or injunctive standards for agentic access. Also monitor amicus briefs and any Supreme Court interest, because those filings signal which industries and rights holders view the case as precedent-setting. CourtListener hosts the oral-argument audio; subsequent reporting will update timing for any further stays or certiorari petitions