Amazon Secures Injunction Against Perplexity’s Comet
▼ Summary
– A federal judge has granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, barring Perplexity AI from using its Comet agents to access password-protected Amazon accounts and systems.
– The court found Amazon is likely to succeed on its claims, ruling that user consent and platform authorization are separate requirements, so Perplexity lacked Amazon’s permission.
– Amazon sued Perplexity, alleging computer fraud because Comet disguised itself as a standard browser and did not identify itself as an AI agent while making purchases.
– The ruling is a significant early legal test for AI agents, suggesting they may need permission from both the user and the platform owner to access logged-in accounts.
– The broader lawsuit will test how computer fraud laws apply to AI agents, and its outcome could shape how future agentic commerce tools interact with websites.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against Perplexity AI, prohibiting its Comet browser agents from accessing password-protected Amazon accounts and systems. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney in San Francisco, determined that Amazon is likely to prevail on the core claims of its lawsuit. The order further prevents Perplexity from creating accounts specifically for AI agent access and mandates the destruction of any Amazon data gathered via the Comet tool.
Amazon initiated legal proceedings in November, accusing the startup of computer fraud. The complaint alleged that Perplexity deliberately disguised its Comet software as a standard Chrome browser, failing to identify it as an AI agent while it executed purchases. The court treated user consent and platform authorization as two separate legal requirements, a distinction that forms the cornerstone of this preliminary decision. According to the judge, a shopper providing their login credentials to Comet did not automatically grant the AI agent permission to operate on Amazon’s platform.
Judge Chesney found that Amazon met all four legal tests for an injunction, including demonstrating the likelihood of irreparable harm. The order explicitly bars Perplexity from using Comet or similar AI agents to interact with protected areas of Amazon’s systems. The judge noted that Perplexity has made clear it would continue the challenged conduct without court intervention. While the court denied Perplexity’s request for a stay pending appeal, it granted a brief seven-day administrative stay to allow the company to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
An Amazon spokesperson stated the injunction is a crucial step in preserving a trusted shopping experience and preventing unauthorized access. The company has consistently argued that third-party agents must clearly identify themselves and obtain platform consent. Amazon’s CEO, Andy Jassy, has previously expressed openness to future partnerships with third-party agents, but strictly on Amazon’s own terms.
The conflict escalated after Amazon sent a cease-and-desist letter in October, demanding Perplexity stop masking Comet as a Chrome browser. Perplexity responded with a blog post titled “Bullying is not innovation,” contending that Comet simply acts on behalf of users who have granted it access to their accounts. The company’s stance was that a user agent inherits the user’s permissions, a argument the court has now preliminarily rejected.
Amazon’s lawsuit invokes the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California state law, alleging unauthorized access to protected computers, potential risk to customer data, and a degraded shopping experience. Perplexity’s defense maintains that Comet only automates customer-directed actions, likening it to a user hiring a personal assistant.
This ruling provides an early judicial perspective on a critical question for the burgeoning field of AI-powered commerce. With companies like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft developing agentic tools, the issue of platform authorization is becoming urgent. The court’s separation of user permission from platform authorization gives companies new legal language for future disputes. If upheld, AI agents may need explicit approval from both the user and the platform owner, not just the user.
Security concerns are also pivotal. Amazon’s complaint highlighted documented vulnerabilities in Comet, including a past prompt injection flaw that could expose data in other browser tabs. Furthermore, the technical challenge of detecting AI agent traffic, which often mimics regular browser visits, creates complications for website analytics and platform security.
The injunction remains in effect as the broader lawsuit advances, testing the application of the CFAA to AI agents operating at a user’s behest. The final outcome could fundamentally shape how every AI commerce product interacts with websites that have not explicitly consented to such access. Perplexity has until March 16 to seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit.
(Source: Search Engine Journal)
