US court overturns Amazon injunction against Perplexity AI, setting precedent for autonomous shopping agents

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals just handed Perplexity AI a major win, overturning a lower court injunction that had blocked the company’s Comet AI shopping agent from operating on Amazon. The ruling, issued on August 4, represents one of the most consequential legal decisions yet on the question of whether AI agents can act on behalf of users without violating computer fraud laws.

The court concluded that when Perplexity’s Comet AI browses Amazon and makes purchases, it’s the human user doing the accessing, not the AI company. That distinction fundamentally redefines the legal relationship between autonomous software agents and the platforms they interact with.

What the court actually said

The dispute traces back to November 2025, when Amazon filed suit against Perplexity AI over its Comet shopping agent. Amazon’s argument was straightforward: Perplexity’s bot was accessing Amazon’s platform in ways that violated both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Amazon’s terms of service.

A district court initially sided with Amazon, issuing a preliminary injunction in March 2026 that shut down Comet’s Amazon operations. That lower court had found what it called “strong evidence” of unauthorized access, particularly after Amazon had sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter.

The appeals court saw it differently. After oral arguments in June 2026, the 9th Circuit determined that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its CFAA claims. The key reasoning: the users are the principals in this relationship. They’re the ones directing the AI agent, and they’re the ones with Amazon accounts. Perplexity is just the tool they’re using.

Why this matters far beyond Amazon

Perplexity AI, valued at $21 billion as of early 2026, built Comet to give users an AI-powered shopping experience. The agent compares prices, reads reviews, and can execute purchases on behalf of users across e-commerce platforms.

The court essentially established that AI agents acting under user direction inherit the user’s authorization to access a platform. That legal framework could apply to virtually any digital service where AI operates as a user’s proxy.

For the crypto and DeFi world, this is a precedent worth watching closely. Autonomous agents are already a growing presence in decentralized finance, executing trades, managing yield strategies, and interacting with smart contracts on behalf of users. No crypto tokens or blockchain protocols were referenced in the court filings regarding this dispute, but the court’s logic — that an AI agent inherits its user’s authorization — maps onto contexts where AI agents interact with decentralized exchanges or lending protocols on a user’s behalf.

The competitive and investment landscape

With Comet back online, Perplexity can continue building its vision of an AI intermediary layer that sits between consumers and retailers. For Amazon, the loss is twofold: it failed to keep a competitor’s agent off its platform, and it inadvertently helped establish case law that makes it harder for any major platform to use the CFAA as a weapon against AI agents. Amazon could still pursue other legal theories, including contract-based claims under its terms of service, but the CFAA route — which carries potential criminal implications and has historically been a powerful deterrent — now looks significantly weaker.

A $21 billion company survived a legal challenge from one of the world’s largest corporations, and the precedent it established makes the entire category of AI agent companies more defensible from a regulatory standpoint. The ruling doesn’t directly address blockchain or decentralized protocols, and no crypto tokens or blockchain technologies were referenced in the court filings. But the legal principle — that an AI agent inherits its user’s authorization — maps neatly onto the composability ethos of DeFi, where protocols are designed to be accessed by other protocols, bots, and agents without gatekeeping.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.