You can read about the case here.
Imagine you hire a personal assistant to do your shopping. You give them your credit card and Amazon password, and they head off to buy what you need. Instead of walking through the front door of the store, they sneak through a side entrance wearing a disguise, to avoid security cameras. When Amazon catches your assistant they say, “I was just shopping for my client! I had permission”.
This is what’s happening in Amazon.com Services LLC v Perplexity AI Inc (ND Cal, 5 November 2025). A lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California. It’s one of the first major legal battles over “agentic AI”, technology that doesn’t just answer questions but actually takes on actions on your behalf.
Amazon.com Services LLC (Plaintiff): The e-commerce giant that also runs Amazon Web Services (AWS), one of the world’s largest cloud computing platforms
Perplexity AI Inc. (Defendant): A $20 billion AI startup that makes an AI-powered search engine and, more recently, an AI “shopping assistant”/browser called Comet
What is an agent? It’s an assistant that can take out tasks for you, think of it as a virtual robot in a web browser.
In August 2025, Perplexity launched Comet, a browser with agentic features. From telling the agent to buy items on websites to logging into accounts or searching the web, the agent can automate many things a person might find a mundane task.
When the agent accesses a website, it sends an identified called a user agent string. According to Amazon, Perplexity has configured Comet to identify itself as Google Chrome rather than an AI agent, which is known as user agent string spoofing.
Amazon uses systems to detect and block bots. By disguising a bot as Chrome, it can slip through the defenses engineers have set up.
Comet can gain access to a lot of personal data, such as Amazon browsing history, payment information, delivery addresses, product recommendations, reviews and prices etc. This is concerning for Amazon because Perplexity’s terms of service allegedly permit the collection of sensitive details such as, passwords and payment data - whilst denying liability for security breaches.
Within the lawsuit, there are a number of legal frameworks that are referred to. Let me explain what these statutes mean and why it’s important to the lawsuit.
The CFAA is the primary “computer crime” statue in the United States, passed in 1986.
It makes it illegal to:
The statute has both criminal penalties (fines and jail time) and civil liability (allowing companies like Amazon to sue for damages).
What counts as unauthorised in agentic terms?
Here’s the core legal question in technical terms:
User → grants credentials to → Perplexity Agent
Perplexity Agent → uses credentials to access → Amazon's servers
Amazon ToS → explicitly prohibits → bot access
Is this authorized access?From a systems design perspective:
Amazon argues this is like having someone’s WiFi password but using it to run cryptocurrency mining operations—you have the credentials, but you’re not authorised to use them that way.
California has its own version called the “Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.” It’s California’s state-level equivalent of CFAA, with similar provisions but different interpretations by California courts.
Why both laws? Amazon can pursue violations under both federal and state law simultaneously, giving them multiple legal theories and potentially higher damages.
What Amazon Alleges: Perplexity “knowingly and with intent” accessed Amazon’s computers without authorisation by:
The Legal Test
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), it’s illegal to intentionally access a computer without authorisation and obtain information. Courts have struggled with what “without authorisation” means:
The Technical Evidence
This is essentially the same argument as the CFAA claim but under California state law. California’s statute has slightly different elements and potentially different damages calculations.
Legal argument
Technical argument
Business argument
Shopping agents threaten Amazon’s lucrative advertising business. Amazon makes much of its profit by selling prominent product placement in search results. If AI agents shop for customers, companies can’t buy their way to the top of search results, the ads lose their value.
From Amazon’s complaint
“Perplexity is not allowed to go where it has been expressly told it cannot; that Perplexity’s trespass involves code rather than a lockpick makes it no less unlawful.”
Legal argument
Technical argument
Philosophical argument
If you have permission to shop on Amazon, why can’t you use a tool to do it for you? It’s like arguing that you can only shop on Amazon using Amazon’s official app, not through a web browser or third-party tool.
From Perplexity’s response
“User agents are exactly that: agents of the user. They’re distinct from crawlers, scrapers, or bots.”
This case forces courts to consider a distinction that doesn’t clearly exist in current law.
Traditional Bot
AI Agent (Perplexity’s argument)
Why it’s legally complicated
The CFAA was written in 1986, long before AI agents existed. Courts have struggled even with simpler cases about Terms of Service violations. Adding autonomous AI into the mix creates unprecedented questions.
Imagine you’re reverse-engineering an API to build a better interface for a service. You’re not doing anything malicious—just improving user experience. But the ToS says “no reverse engineering.” Should that be a federal crime? Courts have increasingly recognised that ToS can’t be the sole basis for criminal liability under CFAA. Otherwise, companies could essentially write criminal law by adding terms to their ToS
This raises questions about delegated authority. In physical law, if you give someone your house key and they commit a crime inside, you’re generally not liable (unless you knew about their intent). But in computer law, the rules are murkier.
Amazon’s advertising business generated $47.5 billion in revenue in 2023. Here’s how it works:
With AI agents
From an engineering perspective, Amazon needs to prove:
Injunctive Relief (court orders)
Monetary Damages
Why the disclosure request matters
If Amazon gets a list of every account Comet accessed, they can:
Technical best practices
Legal best practices
Business best practices
Understanding the technology matters