Amazon alleges in California federal court that Perplexity AI’s Comet browser accesses customers’ Amazon accounts without authorization, violating federal and state computer fraud law. After the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction, Amazon amended its complaint on September 21, 2026, adding iOS cookie-copying allegations and a tortious interference claim. Perplexity moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 13, 2026.
Latest development Oct 13, 2026
On October 13, 2026, Perplexity moved to dismiss Amazon’s amended complaint. It argued that the pleading adds little beyond legal arguments the Ninth Circuit already rejected. It also argued that the new tortious interference claim fails under California’s at-will contract standard.
Why it matters
The case asks whether an AI agent acting for a user “accesses” a website under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The answer will decide whether platforms can use anti-hacking statutes to keep third-party agents out of logged-in accounts, affecting AI developers, online retailers, and their users.
Background
Perplexity AI, Inc.’s Comet browser includes an Assistant that can log into a user’s Amazon account with stored credentials and complete shopping tasks such as comparing products and placing orders. According to reporting on the dispute, Amazon.com Services LLC (Amazon) and Perplexity agreed in November 2024 to pause this kind of agentic shopping. Perplexity allegedly resumed it when Comet launched. Amazon says Perplexity then tried to disguise the Assistant’s automated traffic as an ordinary Chrome browser session to avoid detection.
After sending a cease-and-desist letter, Amazon sued Perplexity on November 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). Amazon alleges that the Assistant accesses password-protected account pages without its authorization. Perplexity, which has publicly called the suit a “bully tactic,” argues that a user directing his or her own AI agent is using a tool, not hacking a website. It also contends that Amazon is using anti-hacking law to block a competing interface to its own site.
On March 9, 2026, Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Amazon a preliminary injunction. She found Amazon likely to succeed on its CFAA and CDAFA claims, citing strong evidence that Comet accessed Amazon’s site without authorization even when acting at a user’s direction. The order required Perplexity to stop Comet from accessing Amazon account pages and to delete the Amazon customer data it had collected. Perplexity appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which stayed the injunction, first administratively in April 2026 and then pending appeal. The stay kept Comet’s shopping function running.
On August 4, 2026, after oral argument on June 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded the case to Judge Chesney. It held that the user, not Perplexity, accesses Amazon’s computers when the Assistant executes a task. Amazon was therefore unlikely to succeed on the access element of either statute. The panel called its holding narrow and acknowledged that there is little to no existing law on how to assign responsibility for AI agents. The Ninth Circuit denied Amazon’s petition for rehearing en banc on September 10, 2026.
On September 11, 2026, Perplexity moved to dismiss the CFAA and CDAFA claims, arguing that the appellate holding forecloses the unauthorized-access element. The court set a hearing on the motion for October 16, 2026. On September 21, 2026, Amazon filed a 41-page amended complaint alleging that Comet for iOS copies users’ Amazon session cookies to Perplexity’s servers, which then request Amazon pages directly. The amended pleading adds a claim for tortious interference with contract and accuses Perplexity of misleading the Ninth Circuit about Comet’s architecture. On October 13, 2026, Perplexity moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that it adds little new and that the tortious interference claim fails under California’s at-will contract standard.
Timeline 13 events
-
FilingPerplexity renews motion to dismiss amended complaint
Perplexity argued that the amended complaint adds little beyond legal arguments the Ninth Circuit already rejected. It also argued that the new tortious interference claim fails under California’s at-will contract standard.
Perplexity AI moves to dismiss Amazon's amended US claims over AI agents
-
FilingAmazon files amended complaint alleging iOS cookie copying
Amazon alleged that Comet for iOS copies users’ Amazon session cookies to Perplexity’s servers, which then request Amazon pages directly. The 41-page pleading adds a tortious interference claim and accuses Perplexity of misleading the Ninth Circuit.
Amazon files amended US claims against Perplexity over AI agentsAmazon blocks Meta's Muse and accuses Perplexity of misleading a courtAmazon Alleges Perplexity Misled Ninth Circuit on Comet TrafficAmazon v. Perplexity Is Testing Who Controls AI Commerce
-
FilingPerplexity moves to dismiss Amazon’s CFAA and CDAFA claims
Perplexity argued that, under the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the user accesses Amazon’s computers, Amazon cannot establish the unauthorized-access element of either statute.
Perplexity AI says appellate ruling dooms Amazon US lawsuit over AI agents
-
AppealNinth Circuit denies Amazon’s petition for rehearing en banc
Amazon sought rehearing of the August 4, 2026, decision vacating the preliminary injunction against Perplexity’s Comet assistant. No judge requested a vote on rehearing the matter en banc.
No 9th Circuit rehearing in Amazon-Perplexity caseAmazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. 26-1444 (order denying rehearing en banc)9th Circuit Won't Rehear Perplexity Agentic AI Vacated Injunction Ruling
-
OrderCourt sets October hearing on Perplexity’s motion to dismiss
The district court scheduled a hearing on Perplexity’s motion to dismiss Amazon’s CFAA and CDAFA claims for October 16, 2026, with Amazon’s opposition due September 25, 2026.
Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 3:25-cv-09514 – CourtListener.com
-
AppealNinth Circuit vacates the preliminary injunction and remands
In an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., the panel held that the user accesses Amazon’s computers, so Amazon is unlikely to succeed on the access element. It also reversed the other injunction findings and limited its holding to the record.
-
HearingNinth Circuit hears oral argument in Seattle
The panel heard oral argument on Perplexity’s appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Amazon's CFAA Injunction Against Perplexity's Comet Browser
-
OrderNinth Circuit grants Perplexity an administrative stay of the injunction
The Ninth Circuit temporarily paused Judge Chesney’s March 9, 2026, injunction while it considered Perplexity’s motion for a longer stay pending appeal.
Appeals court temporarily pauses order blocking Perplexity's AI shopping agent on AmazonAmazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. docket
-
AppealPerplexity appeals the injunction to the Ninth Circuit
The interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction was docketed as No. 26-1444.
Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. — Ninth Circuit docket 26-1444
-
JudgmentDistrict court grants Amazon a preliminary injunction
Judge Maxine M. Chesney found Amazon likely to succeed on its federal and California computer fraud claims. She held that Comet accessed password-protected accounts with users’ permission but without Amazon’s authorization and sent account information to Perplexity’s servers.
-
FilingAmazon sues Perplexity over the Comet shopping assistant
Amazon alleged that Comet’s Assistant accessed customers’ password-protected account pages without Amazon’s authorization. It claimed violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. — docket 3:25-cv-09514
-
OtherAmazon sends cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity
Amazon demanded that Perplexity stop its Comet browser’s AI agent from making purchases on Amazon, citing violations of Amazon’s Conditions of Use.
Amazon and Perplexity are fighting over the future of AI shopping
-
OtherAmazon and Perplexity reportedly agree to pause agentic shopping on Amazon
According to reporting on the dispute, the two companies agreed in November 2024 to pause agentic shopping activity on Amazon, an agreement Perplexity allegedly departed from when Comet launched.
Amazon and Perplexity are fighting over the future of AI shopping
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the district court rule on Perplexity’s challenge to the computer fraud claims in Amazon’s amended complaint by June 30, 2027?
- Court dismisses all computer claims30%
- Amazon’s computer claims survive in part25%
- Still pending on June 30, 202722%
- Amazon’s computer claims survive in full17%
- Amazon drops claims or parties settle6%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
Dismissal of both computer fraud claims is the single most likely result, at 30%, with a ruling expected by mid-2027. The Ninth Circuit’s binding holding that the user, not Perplexity, accesses Amazon’s computers undercuts the access element. Amazon’s new iOS cookie-copying allegations keep partial survival a close alternative.
How it resolves. Resolves on the district court’s first ruling on Perplexity’s October 13, 2026, motion to dismiss as it applies to the CFAA and CDAFA claims. If both claims are dismissed in full, with or without leave to amend, the court dismisses all computer claims. If either claim, or any theory under either claim, survives while some part is dismissed, the claims survive in part. If the motion is denied as to both claims in full, they survive in full. A voluntary dismissal of the computer claims or a reported settlement before any ruling counts as drops or settles. If none of these has occurred by June 30, 2027, the question is still pending. The tortious interference claim does not affect resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal motions to dismiss amended complaints after an appellate ruling on a key element: Roughly half of contested federal motions to dismiss are granted in whole or part, and the rate is higher where binding appellate law addresses the element
Roughly half of contested federal motions to dismiss are granted in whole or part, and the rate rises when binding appellate law addresses a disputed element. The Ninth Circuit’s August 4, 2026, holding that the user accesses Amazon’s computers binds the district court on remand and targets the access element directly. Amazon’s best path is its new allegation that Comet for iOS sends session cookies to Perplexity’s servers, which then request Amazon pages directly. That conduct may fall outside the panel’s narrow, record-limited holding, which makes partial survival the leading alternative. Full survival is less likely given how squarely the precedent covers agent-directed browser access. Settlement or withdrawal stays unlikely in this window because both sides appear to want a ruling on AI agents. Briefing on the October 13, 2026, motion should close by late 2026, but docket timing leaves real risk of no ruling by June 30, 2027. Nothing in the record since the October 14, 2026, forecast moved any outcome by five points, so the numbers are unchanged.
Binding Ninth Circuit holding that the user accesses Amazon’s computers · Whether server-side cookie use falls outside the narrow holding · Briefing and hearing timing on the October 13 motion · Both parties’ interest in precedent on AI agent access · Possible leave to amend prolonging pleading-stage rounds
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 19, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.