What happened
According to the ACLU, Amazon sued Perplexity over an AI agent embedded in Perplexity's browser, Comet, arguing the agent's ability to purchase items on Amazon's site triggers liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The ACLU writes that it filed an amicus brief in the case, which the ACLU says could have far-reaching implications for journalists, researchers, developers, and users of browser automation tools. The ACLU states the appeal is before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 11, 2026.
Technical details
The ACLU describes AI "agents" as systems that combine a conversational LLM interface with other systems that execute actions on a user's behalf. Per the ACLU, three components of Comet are relevant to the litigation:
- •the web browser itself
- •the AI agent operating as an assistant in the browser
- •Perplexity's backend AI systems
The ACLU frames the CFAA claim around the agent's automated interactions with Amazon's site.
Editorial analysis
Industry context: Legal rulings that broaden CFAA liability have historically affected security research, scraping, and automated testing workflows by raising the risk of criminal or civil exposure for otherwise common tools. Companies and researchers who build or use automation tools often rely on predictable legal boundaries for safe experimentation and reporting. A judicial expansion of CFAA triggers could therefore increase defensive legal costs and encourage more cautious or reduced use of automated data-collection in public-interest work.
Practitioner implications: For data scientists and ML engineers, the dispute highlights a legal risk vector for systems that automate web actions, including research-focused crawlers, monitoring agents, and browser extensions. Uncertainty about what constitutes unauthorized access can complicate decisions about instrumentation, logging, consent, and data provenance for tools that interact with third-party sites.
What to watch
- •The Ninth Circuit ruling on June 11, 2026, and how narrowly or broadly it defines CFAA application to automated agents.
- •Additional amicus briefs from civil-society, journalism, and tech groups arguing for narrow CFAA interpretation.
- •Any secondary effects on browser-extension policies, platform terms of service enforcement, or litigation targeting developers and researchers.
Key Points
- 1A court ruling that broadens CFAA liability could significantly raise legal risk for browser automation and web-scraping tools used by researchers.
- 2Legal uncertainty over automated agents may chill journalism and public-interest research that depends on programmatic site interactions.
- 3Observers should monitor the Ninth Circuit decision and amicus activity, since the ruling will shape acceptable data-collection practices for tools.
Scoring Rationale
The case could change legal boundaries for automated web interaction, affecting researchers, journalists, and developers. That creates meaningful operational and compliance risk for practitioners building web automation.
Sources
Public references used for this report.
Practice with real Retail & eCommerce data
90 SQL & Python problems · 15 industry datasets
250 free problems · No credit card
See all Retail & eCommerce problems