{"id":395134,"date":"2026-09-04T11:30:04","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T06:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=395134"},"modified":"2026-09-05T16:05:41","modified_gmt":"2026-09-05T10:35:41","slug":"us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/","title":{"rendered":"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn’t “access” a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:<\/span> While considering this case regarding seeking of a preliminary injunction Amazon.com Services, LLC (Amazon) against Perplexity AI, Inc. (Perplexity), to prevent the use of Perplexity’s agentic web browser AI tool on Amazon.com in violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and its California State law analogue, the Bench of Milan D. Smith Jr.*<\/span><\/span>, Eric C. Tung, Circuit Judges and John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, concluded that Amazon was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because it was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its CFAA claims by showing that Perplexity “accessed” Amazon computers for CFAA and Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) purposes. The Court found Perplexity did not use a tool to “access” Amazon’s computers; rather, it was the user who “accessed” Amazon’s computers, with the help of Perplexity’s AI agent, the “Assistant”, to carry out specific acts on Amazon.com.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The parties<\/p>\n

Perplexity is an AI startup and the creator of an AI-enabled web browser, Comet<\/span> which is a web browser that operates like Google Chrome, running locally on a user’s machine and enabling the user to navigate the internet. As per Perplexity, Comet’s differentiating feature is an optional AI “agent” (the Assistant)<\/span> that can perform tasks at the user’s direction, such as browsing websites like Amazon.com to shop for requested goods.<\/p>\n

Amazon on the other hand owns and operates Amazon store where customers may create accounts which allow them to manage orders, store payment information and delivery addresses, receive personalised recommendations, track purchases, and process returns within their password-protected accounts.<\/p>\n

The dispute<\/p>\n

Prior to the release of Comet, Amazon had emphasised that Perplexity’s AI products would not be permitted to access the Amazon store. However, after Perplexity launched Comet and the Assistant accessed the Amazon store; Amazon again informed Perplexity AI that it did not have authorisation to do so.<\/p>\n

At the core of the dispute was Perplexity’s decision not to use a “user-agent string”,<\/span> a mechanism that would communicate that the user has activated an AI agent. Amazon had further stated that user-agent string would allow Amazon to block the Assistant’s access to the Amazon store.<\/p>\n

Perplexity on the other had had stated that the Assistant cannot operate wholly independently and that it relies on direction from the user and instructions from Perplexity’s servers.<\/p>\n

Case trajectory<\/p>\n

Amazon filed its complaint in November 2025, alleging violations of the CFAA and the CDAFA and moved a simultaneous application for a preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

In March 2026, the District Court held a hearing on the motion and issued a tentative ruling in Amazon’s favour and soon after issued a written order granting Amazon’s requested preliminary injunction on the grounds that Amazon had shown a likelihood of success on its CFAA claims under Section 1030(a<\/span>)(2) and its CDAFA claims. The District Court had also held that Amazon had shown it would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction and that the balance of the hardships and public interest favoured Amazon.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment<\/p>\n

Laws involved<\/span><\/p>\n

The CFAA<\/span> was originally enacted by the Congress with the objective of preventing intentional intrusion onto someone else’s computer, specifically, computer hacking. In 1996, the scope of the legislation was expanded to any “protected computer”. Section 1030 defines “protected computer” to include a computer (a<\/span>) exclusively used by the federal government or a financial institution, (b<\/span>) used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, or (c<\/span>) used in a voting system either to support a federal election, or that has moved in or otherwise affects inter-State or foreign commerce.<\/p>\n

California enacted the CDAFA<\/span> aiming to expand the degree of protection afforded to individuals, businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorised access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems. This law criminalises “knowingly and without permission accessing or causing to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network<\/span>”, and provides a private cause of action.<\/p>\n

Standard for review<\/span><\/p>\n

To adjudicate the case, the Court had to review the grant of a preliminary injunction favouring Amazon for abuse of discretion. It was stated that in determining whether a District Court has abused its discretion, the Court must consider if the District Court identified the correct legal rule and then determine whether the District Court’s application of the correct legal standard was 1) illogical, 2) implausible, or 3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that party requesting a preliminary injunction must show that (i<\/span>) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (ii<\/span>) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (iii<\/span>) the balance of equities tips in their favour; and (iv<\/span>) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.<\/p>\n

Amazon’s likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its CFAA and CDAFA claims<\/p>\n

The Court stated that to bring a successful Section 1030(a<\/span>)(2) claim pursuant to the CFAA private right of action, Amazon must show that Perplexity had intentionally accessed a computer, without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and that Perplexity thereby obtained information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an inter-State or foreign communication, and that there was loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period aggregating at least $5000 in value.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that in its short-written order, the District Court had stated that Amazon had provided strong evidence against Perplexity and Comet browser’s access. The Circuit Court however held that the District Court erred in its “access” analysis<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that agentic AI is an emerging technology, thus there is little to no existing case law directly dealing with how to ascribe responsibility for AI agents like the Assistant, let alone case law specifically dealing with agentic AI in the CFAA context. Furthermore, CFAA cases dealing with more established technologies do not provide a perfect analogue to the present case.<\/p>\n

The Court distinguished between the present case and cases such as Facebook, Inc.<\/span> v. Power Ventures, Inc.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a> and Meta Platforms, Inc.<\/span> v. BrandTotal Ltd.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a> While in Power Ventures<\/span>, the bulk of the analysis was devoted to authorisation, not access; in BrandTotal<\/span> the District Court had explained that UpVoice 2021 browser extension accessed only the data that Meta has sent to the individual users”, and that the program was not proactively “accessing” or “communicating with” Meta’s servers. The Court pointed out that contrary to the cases cited, the Assistant appears to do more than passive data collection.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Van Buren<\/span> v. United States<\/span>, 593 US 374 (2021), which held that “in the computing context, ‘access’ references the act of entering a computer system itself or a particular part of a computer system, such as files, folders, or databases”.<\/p>\n

The Court then had to determine whether Perplexity accesses Amazon.com through the Assistant<\/span>, the Court pointed out that the CFAA’s plain language suggests the Assistant itself cannot “access” Amazon’s servers. The relevant provision of the CFAA punishes whoever intentionally accesses a protected computer; thus, the CFAA contemplates access by a person.<\/span> However, advanced the Assistant currently is a tool<\/span>, not a person for statutory purposes.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that it is the user who “accesses” Amazon’s computers, with the help of the Assistant<\/span> to carry out specific acts on Amazon.com. Perplexity may receive screenshots of the user’s browser and may communicate instructions to the Assistant, but those activities, by themselves, do not mean that Perplexity has “accessed” (gained entry) to Amazon’s servers. Therefore, Amazon is not likely to succeed in proving the “access” prong of its CFAA claim.<\/p>\n

Applying the rule of lenity which comes into play only where the statute at issue “is truly ambiguous”, the Court explained that this rule guides the Court’s interpretation, that is to say that it will construe “any ambiguity” as to statutory meaning against liability. Imposing liability here would require a novel interpretation far afield from the statute’s purpose to prevent intentional intrusion onto someone else’s computer, specifically, computer hacking; furthermore, imposition of liability will also expose users themselves to criminal liability for facilitating Perplexity’s purported unauthorised access to Amazon’s servers. It is unlikely that Congress would have exposed individual users to criminal liability under the CFAA by using the Assistant and Comet browser to access Amazon.com.<\/p>\n

Amazon’s CDAFA Claim<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Considering the second limb of Amazon’s claim under CDAFA, the Court pointed out that the legislation’s language similarly focuses on conduct such as hacking into and tampering with computer systems and data, and the disruptions and costs of such conduct to the business of public and private entities. The Court further explained that the CDAFA defines “access” to mean “causing input to or data processing with… the logical, arithmetical, or memory functions of a computer, computer system, or computer network”. While “access” under the CDAFA may have a broader scope than the CFAA’s definition, the focus of the inquiry is still on the person accessing or causing the access.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the user (not Perplexity) accesses Amazon using the Assistant as an AI tool, and thus Amazon is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its CDAFA claim.<\/p>\n

Whether the district court erred in its conclusion<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that Amazon presented weak evidence vis-à-vis as to the actual threat of irreparable harm. The Court explained that alleged degradation of shopping experience via the Assistant is more abstract sort of harm for Amazon as compared to harm to its goodwill when customers do not receive the specific product they had ordered, and in the prior scenario users would hold the Assistant responsible for any degradation given their choice to employ it.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Amazon proffered evidence vis-à-vis cyber-risk harm was limited.<\/p>\n

The Court further explained that Amazon had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, its arguments regarding the harm to Perplexity from an injunction fell flat. As a result, the balance of the equities favours Perplexity and weighs against an injunction. An injunction against conduct that likely does not violate the CFAA or the CDAFA would not serve the public interest. Instead, such an injunction would impair consumer choice and needlessly limit development of a nascent technology. The public interest thus favoured Perplexity.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

Since Amazon is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the “access” prong of the CFAA and CDAFA analysis and the equitable factors do not otherwise strongly favour an injunction, the Court vacated the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p>\n

[Amazon.com Services LLC<\/span> v. Perplexity AI Inc<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine US CA 9C 1<\/a>, decided on 4-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice Milan D. Smith Jr.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Hagan Scotten (argued), Hueston Hennigan LLP, New York, New York; Christine M. Woodin, Moez M. Kaba, and Billy J. McLain, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.<\/p>\n

Christopher G. Michel (argued), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Washington, D.C.; Lucas A. Hammill and Renita N. Sharma, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, New York; Daniel C. Posner, Jonathan H. Kim, and John B. Quinn, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, California; Andrew H. Schapiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Chicago, Illinois; for Defendant-Appellant<\/p>\n

Esha Bhandari and Lauren Yu, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Jake Karr, Ramya Krishnan, and Alex Abdo, Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York; for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University<\/p>\n

Corynne McSherry, Victoria Noble, and Andrew Crocker, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Alliance for Responsible Data Collection, Mozilla Corporation, Digital Medusa, and Eleutherai<\/p>\n

Tod Cohen and Annie Nguyen, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Software & Information Industry Association<\/p>\n

David M. Gossett, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alexandra Perloff-Giles, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, New York; for Amicus Curiae National Retail Federation<\/p>\n

Karl Huth, Matthew Reynolds, J. Lee Hill, and Jack Mitchell, Huth Reynolds LLP, Huntington, New York, for Amicus Curiae Digital Context Next<\/p>\n

Michael S. Elkin and Sean R. Anderson, Winston and Strawn LLP, New York, New York; Jennifer A. Golinveaux and Thomas J. Kearney, Winston and Strawn LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amicus Curiae News\/Media Alliance<\/p>\n

A. Jeff Ifrah and Robert W. Ward, Ifrah PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Air Transport Association of America Inc. d\/b\/a Airlines for America<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

1.<\/a> 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016).<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> 605 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (N.D. Cal. 2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amazon had sued Perplexity AI alleging that its agentic AI-based shopping tool has been accessing Amazon’s servers without authorisation. The District Court had granted injunction in favour of Amazon holding that it had proved its claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":395138,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[76547,113834,38577,30105,113835,113839,113838,113833,113836,113837,55615],"class_list":["post-395134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-agentic-ai","tag-ai-agents","tag-amazon-com","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-comet-browser","tag-comprehensive-computer-data-access-and-fraud-act-cdafa","tag-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-cfaa","tag-perplexity-ai","tag-shopping-tools","tag-us-court-of-appeals-ninth-circuit","tag-us-district-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUS Court of Appeals on Amazon vs. Perplexity AI | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over "access" of Amazon's computers.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn't "access" a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over "access" of Amazon's computers.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn't "access" a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn’t “access” a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2167,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Agentic AI\",\"AI agents\",\"Amazon.com\",\"Artificial Intelligence\",\"Comet browser\",\"Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)\",\"Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)\",\"Perplexity AI\",\"shopping tools\",\"US Court of Appeals ninth circuit\",\"US district court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/\",\"name\":\"US Court of Appeals on Amazon vs. Perplexity AI | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over \\\"access\\\" of Amazon's computers.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Amazon vs Perplexity AI\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/04\\\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn’t “access” a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"US Court of Appeals on Amazon vs. Perplexity AI | SCC Times","description":"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over \"access\" of Amazon's computers.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn't \"access\" a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI","og_description":"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over \"access\" of Amazon's computers.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn't \"access\" a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn’t “access” a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI","datePublished":"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/"},"wordCount":2167,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp","keywords":["Agentic AI","AI agents","Amazon.com","Artificial Intelligence","Comet browser","Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)","Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)","Perplexity AI","shopping tools","US Court of Appeals ninth circuit","US district court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/","name":"US Court of Appeals on Amazon vs. Perplexity AI | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-04T06:00:04+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-05T10:35:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"AI Shopping Agent or User? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects Amazon vs. Perplexity AI dispute over \"access\" of Amazon's computers.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Amazon vs Perplexity AI"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/04\/us-court-appeals-amazon-vs-perplexity-ai-access-website\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AI assistant or user? U.S. Court of Appeals dissects why an AI agent doesn’t “access” a website in Amazon vs. Perplexity AI"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Amazon-vs-Perplexity-AI.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=395134"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":395350,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395134\/revisions\/395350"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/395138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=395134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=395134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=395134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}