An AI shopping agent just received its first meaningful reprieve at the US federal appeals level.
On August 4, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had restricted Perplexity's Comet browser from helping users shop on Amazon. The narrow question was whether a user who logs into an Amazon account and asks an AI assistant to compare products or move through checkout is using a tool, or whether Perplexity itself is entering Amazon's systems without permission.
The court returned the entry point to users
The case began in November 2025. Amazon argued that Comet accessed password-protected account areas, failed to clearly identify the AI agent, and transmitted screenshots or account information to Perplexity servers. A San Francisco district court granted Amazon a preliminary injunction in March 2026.
The Ninth Circuit vacated that order in a 21-page opinion written by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., with Judge Eric Tung and District Judge John Hinderaker on the panel. The opinion centered on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's parallel statute.
“the user (not Perplexity) accesses Amazon using the Assistant as an AI tool”
That sentence is the hinge. The court treated Comet more like a browser controlled by the user than a separate Perplexity intrusion into Amazon's servers. It also cited EFF's technical explanation as especially clear.
AI intent was left for another day
Amazon still has a serious argument. Comet is not a passive browser extension: it can decide what to click next, compare options and continue a task. Amazon says that autonomy creates security and data risks.
The panel acknowledged that agentic AI is new and that existing law offers little direct guidance. At argument, Judge Hinderaker noted that the case was difficult because the court was applying a 1986 statute to modern AI agents. But the court did not equate autonomy with hacking. It focused on who sent the request, who had account permission and whether screenshots passed through the user's machine amounted to Perplexity accessing Amazon.
The checkable facts are concrete: Amazon sued in November 2025; the district court issued an injunction in March 2026; the Ninth Circuit vacated it on August 4, 2026; the dispute involved CFAA section 1030(a)(2), CDAFA claims and a claimed loss threshold above $5,000.
Platforms lost temporary control
Perplexity has not won the full lawsuit. Amazon can keep pressing other legal theories and platform-rule arguments. What it lost is the ability to use the current CFAA theory to keep Comet out while the case proceeds.
The larger issue is commercial control. Amazon sells products, recommendations and advertising. Earlier CLS background put Amazon's 2025 advertising revenue at $68.6 billion. If shopping agents become the user's first interface, ranking, ads and conversion control move away from the platform.
The next tests are practical: whether Comet changes identity disclosure, how it handles account data, and whether platforms respond with terms, technical blocks, dedicated APIs or paid partnerships for agents.
Sources: Ninth Circuit opinion, EFF, Courthouse News, The Next Web, earlier CLS case background, CocoLoop; verification covers the procedural timeline, CFAA and CDAFA issues, the $5,000 loss threshold, the 21-page opinion, the three-judge panel, and Amazon advertising-revenue context.