A federal court in California has granted Amazon’s request for a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit against Perplexity, finding that the e-commerce giant is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that Perplexity’s Comet browser used “AI agents” to access Amazon’s protected computer systems without authorization. In a newly-issued order, the court barred Perplexity from accessing Amazon’s protected systems using such AI agents and from using Amazon accounts to facilitate that access until the case is resolved.
The Background in Brief: Amazon filed suit against Perplexity AI in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Perplexity of accessing password-protected portions of Amazon’s website, including customer account pages, in order to retrieve information and perform user-requested tasks. Amazon – which maintains that Perplexity’s system disguises its automated activity as human browsing – claims that the conduct violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and California Penal Code § 502, both of which prohibit unauthorized access to computer systems.
On the same day that it filed suit, Amazon lodged a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to bar Perplexity from accessing its protected computer systems for the duration of the case.
Amazon Lands an Early Victory
Applying the familiar four-factor test for preliminary injunctions in her March 9 order, Judge Maxine M. Chesney concluded that Amazon had met its burden. First, the court found Amazon likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. Although Comet’s access occurred with permission from individual users, the court determined that such permission does not necessarily constitute authorization from Amazon itself to access its computers.
Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, including Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., the court noted that once a platform owner revokes authorization, such as through a cease-and-desist letter, continued access may violate the CFAA even if users themselves consent to the activity. The court also determined that Amazon had adequately shown the “loss” required under the statute, pointing to evidence that Amazon employees spent significant time investigating and responding to the alleged conduct.
Judge Chesney also concluded that Amazon is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, noting that courts have repeatedly recognized that ongoing unauthorized access to protected computer systems can constitute irreparable injury.
Perplexity argued that the injunction would significantly harm its business by limiting its ability to compete in the AI-assisted shopping space, but the court was not persuaded. Even if the requested relief is granted, the court noted, Comet will retain the ability to access the broader web; the injunction simply bars the system from accessing password-protected portions of Amazon’s website. And to the extent Perplexity might suffer losses tied to the restricted access, the court emphasized a “long-settled principle” that harm resulting from illegal conduct does not merit significant equitable protection.
The order temporarily enjoins Perplexity from accessing Amazon’s protected computer systems using AI agents or from using Amazon accounts to enable such access. It also requires Perplexity to destroy any Amazon data obtained through the alleged conduct, provide notice of the order to relevant personnel and affiliates, and certify its compliance with the court.
The court declined to require Amazon to post a bond – despite Perplexity’s request for a bond of at least $1 billion – finding the record insufficient to quantify damages tied specifically to Comet’s restricted access to Amazon’s password-protected systems. The court also denied Perplexity’s request for a stay pending appeal, but granted a seven-day administrative stay to allow the company to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit.
Perplexity appealed the ruling on Tuesday.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: While the ruling addresses a relatively narrow question, whether Perplexity’s AI agents may access Amazon’s protected systems while the case proceeds, it arrives at a moment when agentic AI tools are beginning to reshape how consumers interact with the internet and how retail transactions occur online. Unlike traditional AI chatbots that simply summarize information, agentic AI systems are designed to actively navigate websites, log into accounts, retrieve data, and complete tasks on behalf of users. In the retail context, that could mean AI tools that comparison shop across platforms, manage orders, or execute purchases without the user ever directly interacting with a retailer’s website.
Amazon’s lawsuit – and the court’s willingness to grant early injunctive relief – highlights the legal friction that may arise as these tools collide with the platform-based architecture of modern e-commerce. Retailers like Amazon have built tightly controlled ecosystems around their data, customer accounts, and marketplace infrastructure. Agentic AI systems, by contrast, are designed to move across platforms, automate interactions, and extract information to power new shopping interfaces.
As a result, the case offers an early glimpse into a broader legal battle likely to unfold across the retail and technology sectors: whether – and under what circumstances – AI agents can autonomously access and interact with third-party platforms. As agentic commerce continues to develop, disputes over platform access, data control, and automated interactions may become a defining legal issue for the next generation of digital commerce.
The case is Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 3:25-cv-09514 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
