AI agents are starting to shop for consumers, and retailers are pushing back on the terms of that access. In one of the early lawsuits that is testing how much control retailers have over AI agents operating on their platforms: Amazon has expanded its case against Perplexity, adding new allegations about how the AI company’s Comet agent accesses Amazon and a claim that Perplexity interferes with contracts between Amazon and its customers.
Amazon’s amended complaint comes after the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against Perplexity in August. The appeals court held that, on the record before it, Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the “access” element of its claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”). The court found that the Amazon customer, rather than Perplexity, was accessing Amazon’s computers using Perplexity’s AI agent as a tool.
The September 21 amended complaint takes up two issues raised by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling: Amazon adds factual allegations aimed at showing that Perplexity itself accessed its systems and a contract-based claim tied to restrictions in Amazon’s Conditions of Use.
Who Is Accessing Amazon?
In the amended complaint that it filed in the Northern District of California, Amazon alleges that Comet is not simply software operating locally at a user’s direction. The retailer maintains that Perplexity’s servers direct how Comet interacts with password-protected Amazon pages, including what it clicks and where it navigates – characterizing Comet as “Perplexity’s instrument.”
Amazon also sets out new allegations about the iOS version of Comet. The e-commerce giant claims that Perplexity’s app enabled the company to access password-protected areas of customers’ Amazon accounts directly through its own servers, rather than through the customers’ devices. Amazon alleges that this occurred from March 18 through at least May 11, 2026. It also maintains that these direct connections occurred while Perplexity was telling the Ninth Circuit that “no Perplexity computer ever has direct access to an Amazon computer.”
The new allegations respond directly to the Ninth Circuit, which found that the customer, rather than Perplexity, was accessing Amazon with the help of Perplexity’s AI agent.
A New Contract Claim
Amazon has also added a claim for tortious interference with contract, alleging that Perplexity knowingly causes customers to violate Amazon’s Conditions of Use when they use Comet in ways the terms prohibit. Since May 2025, those Conditions have included dedicated “Agent Terms” that require AI agents to identify themselves, allow Amazon to restrict their access, and prohibit them from accessing Amazon after being told to stay out.
Notably, the theory does not depend on Perplexity itself being bound by the Agent Terms, as Amazon alleges that the terms bind its customers and that Perplexity knowingly causes those customers to breach them.
The contract claim similarly comes against the backdrop of an issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit. In vacating the preliminary injunction, the appeals court noted that its ruling did not impair Amazon’s ability to regulate access to Amazon.com through private terms of service for its users. Amazon is now invoking those customer contracts as the basis for a claim against Perplexity.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: For retailers, the dispute highlights the role that terms of service can play alongside technical measures in controlling third-party AI agents. Counsel should consider whether existing terms address agentic access, clearly define prohibited conduct, and give the retailer flexibility to restrict particular agents or forms of access.
Amazon’s amended complaint shows how those provisions can potentially support claims beyond breach of contract. For companies seeking to restrict third-party agents, clear contract language, notice to AI providers, and a documented record of enforcement may provide additional avenues for enforcement when computer-access claims fall short.
The case is Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 3:25-cv-09514 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
