A US court has temporarily allowed Perplexity’s AI shopping agents to resume operating on Amazon, reversing an earlier injunction that blocked the startup’s Comet browser agents from the retail platform. The ruling, issued on 17 March 2026, represents one of the first legal tests of whether AI agents have the right to browse and purchase on behalf of users.
The case began when Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025, accusing the startup of concealing its AI shopping agents and accessing Amazon’s systems without authorisation. A federal judge initially sided with Amazon, finding strong evidence that Perplexity’s Comet browser accessed the platform illegally under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a California computer fraud statute.
What happened in the Amazon vs Perplexity case?
Amazon’s core argument was straightforward: Perplexity’s agents were visiting Amazon’s marketplace, scraping product data, and making purchases without proper authorisation. The platform contended this amounted to unauthorised access under federal computer fraud law.
Perplexity fired back that the lawsuit was a bald attempt to block Amazon users from choosing their own browsing tools. The startup argued that AI agents do not have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with, framing the dispute as one about platform control rather than security.
The temporary reversal on 17 March does not settle the underlying question. It pauses the injunction while the case proceeds, giving Perplexity’s agents a narrow window to continue operating on Amazon.
Why this case matters for agentic AI commerce
The Amazon-Perplexity dispute is a harbinger of conflicts to come. As AI agents become more capable of browsing, comparing, and purchasing on behalf of users, the question of who controls access to retail platforms will become central. Traditional web scraping law was built around human users and search engine crawlers. AI agents that act autonomously on behalf of consumers occupy a legal grey area that existing statutes were not designed to address.
If Perplexity prevails, it could establish a precedent that AI agents acting on behalf of users have the same browsing rights as the users themselves. If Amazon wins, platforms will have broad discretion to block AI agents, effectively creating gatekeeping power over how automated systems interact with commercial platforms.
Where the pressure lands
Neither side has a clean case. Amazon has legitimate interests in controlling how its platform is accessed, particularly when automated agents bypass its advertising model. Perplexity has a reasonable argument that users should be free to choose their own browsing tools. The resolution will likely come through legislation or a settlement that sets clearer rules for AI agent access, rather than through a single court ruling.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or professional advice.
