Ninth Circuit: AI Browsers Can Access Amazon Without Permission

A federal appeals court has ruled that an AI-powered browser can enable users to shop on Amazon without the retailer's explicit authorization, overturning a lower court decision that had sided with the e-commerce giant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney's injunction against Perplexity, a San Francisco AI startup. The three-judge panel found that Perplexity's Comet browser did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal anti-hacking statute.

The technical dispute

Perplexity launched its Comet browser last year, allowing customers to search password-protected websites including Amazon and make purchases without directly contacting Amazon's servers. The retailer sought legal action to block this functionality, and Judge Chesney granted an injunction in March citing the CFAA, which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization and causing financial loss exceeding $5,000.

The appeals court disagreed with that interpretation. Judge Milan Smith, writing for the unanimous panel, emphasized a crucial technical distinction: "It is the user who 'accesses' Amazon's computers," not Perplexity itself. The court noted that Amazon data was first transmitted to users' computers before being relayed to Perplexity via screenshots.

Why it matters

This ruling establishes important precedent for how AI tools can interact with existing web platforms and could influence the broader debate over data access in the AI era. The decision protects users and developers from potential criminal liability when employing browser tools that interact with password-protected sites—a common practice among journalists, researchers, and everyday consumers.

The court warned that Amazon's interpretation could expose users themselves to criminal conspiracy charges for simply using such tools. Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the ruling "should be helpful in pushing back against use of the CFAA to mask anti-privacy and anti-competitive behavior."

Industry implications

The case drew significant attention from media and civil liberties organizations. The News/Media Alliance, representing over 2,200 U.S. publishers, supported Amazon's position, arguing that allowing unauthorized access to password-protected areas could deprive industries of critical protections and undermine their ability to generate digital revenue.

Conversely, the American Civil Liberties Union and Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute argued that imposing liability on Perplexity would expose journalists and researchers to penalties for using standard digital tools.

Amazon stated it "respectfully disagrees" with the ruling and is evaluating next steps, which could include requesting a rehearing before a larger appeals court panel or appealing to the Supreme Court.

The case details were first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.