A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Perplexity AI’s shopping agents can return to Amazon’s site. The ruling undid a temporary injunction Amazon had used to prevent them from accessing the platform. The court concluded that Amazon’s legal claim under a federal hacking statute lacked strength. It emphasized that user activity—not Perplexity’s actions—was central to the issue. This decision overturned a prior ruling by a federal judge. The judge had supported Amazon, stating that the e-commerce giant had presented convincing evidence of unauthorized access to its site via the Comet browser.
Perplexity offers an AI tool designed to help users navigate the web and shop online through its Comet browser. In November, Amazon sent the company a stern legal warning, demanding that Perplexity prohibit users from deploying AI agents to make purchases on Amazon’s platform. The e-commerce company argued that third-party tools should not override its own rules about which external services are allowed to access its systems. This raised concerns over how online platforms can control access and what role AI tools play in that dynamic.
Reacting to the appeals court’s decision, a Perplexity spokesperson said, “Perplexity will continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want.” Meanwhile, Amazon expressed disappointment. A company spokesperson stated, “We respectfully disagree with today’s decision on the preliminary injunction. We remain confident in our case and are evaluating our next steps.” Each company emphasized its position. They highlighted a deeper debate about user autonomy, online privacy, and platform control.
According to a Reuters report, this ruling marks the first time a U.S. federal appeals court has decided on whether AI agents operating at users’ behest can legally access online platforms. The decision could set an important precedent for how similar tools and their use by consumers are treated in future legal battles. Both Perplexity and Amazon are likely to continue their legal arguments, with each side maintaining its stance on the matter.