US 9th Circuit overturns Amazon's injunction against Perplexity's Comet AI browser, ruling the CFAA does not bar AI agents from accessing websites

Summary

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated on August 4 a preliminary injunction that Amazon had won against Perplexity AI's Comet browser, a tool that lets users shop on Amazon through an AI interface. The court ruled that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not apply because it is the user, not Perplexity, who technically accesses Amazon's servers when Comet is operating. The dispute began in November 2025, when Amazon won a district-court injunction barring Comet from the platform. The 9th Circuit's decision allows Perplexity to resume Comet's Amazon operations pending any further appeal. The ruling sets a CFAA precedent that distinguishes between an AI developer and the user on whose behalf the agent acts, a distinction that could govern how courts assess the legality of AI agents broadly.

The split

US tech and legal outlets differ on emphasis. Court reporters (Courthouse News) focus on the procedural reversal. Freedom-tech and crypto outlets (TFTC) frame the ruling as a rights win for AI developers. Consumer tech press (Engadget) traces the November 2025 origin of the dispute and frames it as the opening round of a wider platform-versus-AI-agent conflict. No coverage was found from Amazon directly defending its original CFAA argument; the company has not yet commented publicly on the 9th Circuit decision per the feed.

By the numbers

• November 2025, when Amazon first won an injunction against Perplexity's Comet shopping tool
• 1, the legal distinction at the center of the ruling: user versus developer as the party accessing a server under the CFAA
• 9th Circuit, the US federal appeals court covering California and the western states, whose rulings on tech cases often set de facto national standards until the Supreme Court intervenes

Why it matters

The ruling creates a legal framework for AI agents that browse commercial platforms: as long as the human user authorises the action, the developer is not the party "accessing" the server, so CFAA-based injunctions against the developer may not hold. Platforms that want to block AI shopping agents will need a different legal theory. The case also concerns Amazon specifically, whose marketplace controls a large share of US e-commerce and has strong incentives to restrict competitors' AI tooling.

What to watch

• Whether Amazon appeals to a full 9th Circuit panel or seeks Supreme Court review
• Whether other e-commerce platforms or social networks cite Amazon's CFAA strategy and face the same circuit-court test
• Whether the district court issues a new injunction on different grounds after the 9th Circuit's remand
• Congressional or FTC scrutiny of AI agent access to commercial platforms in the wake of the ruling