Perplexity is pushing back against Amazon’s expanded legal challenge to its AI-powered shopping agent, arguing that the e-commerce giant has failed to state viable claims under computer-access laws or for interference with its customer agreements. In a new motion filed in the Northern District of California, Perplexity asks the court to dismiss Amazon’s amended complaint, including its newly added claim for tortious interference with contract.
Challenging Amazon’s Contract Claim
In its October 13 motion to dismiss, Perplexity argues that Amazon’s Conditions of Use constitute an at-will contract, which, under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., requires a showing of independently wrongful conduct. Perplexity maintains that Amazon cannot meet that requirement through its allegedly deficient claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”). It also argues that Amazon has failed to identify a specific contractual counterparty or adequately allege intentional interference with its customer agreements.
Amazon added the contract claim in its September 21 amended complaint, alleging that Perplexity knowingly induced customers to violate its Conditions of Use by enabling them to use Comet to access Amazon’s marketplace despite the company’s restrictions. In May 2025, Amazon introduced AI-specific provisions, known as Agent Terms, requiring automated agents to identify themselves, prohibiting circumvention of technical access controls, and restricting access after Amazon instructs an agent to stay out.
Pointing to communications between the companies, a cease-and-desist letter, and statements by Perplexity’s counsel during the litigation, Amazon argues that Perplexity knew of those restrictions and still continued operating Comet in ways that allegedly caused customers to breach their agreements.
Computer-Access Claims Remain in Dispute
Perplexity also challenges Amazon’s computer-access claims, relying on an August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that vacated a preliminary injunction restricting Perplexity’s AI-agent access to Amazon’s systems. The appeals court found Amazon unlikely to succeed on its CFAA and CDAFA claims at that stage, concluding that the relevant access was attributable to consumers who activated and directed Comet, rather than Perplexity itself.
In its amended complaint, Amazon alleges that Perplexity concealed Comet’s identity as an automated agent, circumvented technical restrictions, and directed the assistant’s actions through its own servers. It also advances a separate theory involving Comet for iOS, alleging that Perplexity’s cloud servers used customers’ authentication cookies to connect directly to Amazon’s systems from March 18 through at least May 11, 2026.
Perplexity counters that users initiate and direct the assistant’s activity, regardless of whether requests pass through Perplexity’s servers. The iOS-specific allegations were not before the Ninth Circuit in its preliminary injunction review.
THE STRATEGY: The dispute raises a developing question for companies with e-commerce operations: how far can contractual restrictions and computer-access laws extend when consumers delegate shopping tasks to third-party AI agents? For Amazon, the addition of a contract-interference claim provides another potential avenue to restrict third-party AI access to its marketplace, particularly after the Ninth Circuit found it unlikely to succeed on its computer-access claims at the preliminary injunction stage.
The Ninth Circuit did not invalidate Amazon’s customer agreements or determine the enforceability of the restrictions contained in its Conditions of Use for purposes of the new interference claim. Nor does the existence of those agreements automatically establish Perplexity’s liability for interference. As AI agents begin to operate between consumers and retailers, the case highlights how companies may turn to contractual restrictions, alongside computer-access laws, to maintain control over their digital storefronts.
The case is Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 3:25-cv-09514 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
