TL;DR
- Court Ruling: A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed Perplexity AI’s shopping agents back on Amazon, staying a lower court injunction that blocked the Comet browser.
- Legal Stakes: The case tests whether AI tools can autonomously shop on third-party platforms without the platform’s consent, with no clear legal precedent yet established.
- Industry Impact: The outcome could reshape retail media models worth billions in advertising revenue that depend on human browsing behavior.
- Next Steps: Amazon must respond to the stay motion before the 9th Circuit decides whether to extend the pause through the full appeal.
A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed Perplexity AI’s shopping agents back on Amazon, staying a lower court order that blocked the AI startup’s Comet browser from accessing the e-commerce platform. Granted on March 17, the administrative stay keeps Perplexity’s AI-powered shopping tool operational while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers a longer-term pause through the full appeal. A Perplexity spokesperson told Reuters the company believes “users have the right to choose their own AI” and will keep fighting for that right. An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment.
At stake is whether AI tools can autonomously shop on third-party platforms without the platform’s consent. According to Bazaarvoice data cited by eMarketer, 64% of shoppers already use AI to compare products, making the outcome relevant far beyond a single dispute.
The Legal Battle
The stay reverses – for now – a ruling that had gone decisively in Amazon’s favor. Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025, accusing the AI startup of covertly accessing private customer accounts through its Comet browser and associated AI agent. It marked the latest in a series of legal battles with content publishers and platform operators that has dogged Perplexity.
In response, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a preliminary injunction on March 9, finding Amazon was likely to succeed on its claims that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a California computer fraud statute. Chesney drew a key legal distinction between user consent and platform authorization in her ruling:
“Amazon has provided strong evidence that Perplexity, through its Comet browser, accesses with the Amazon user’s permission but without authorization by Amazon, the user’s password-protected account.”
Building on that finding, Amazon alleged that Perplexity circumvented Amazon’s technical barrier within 24 hours of it being deployed in August 2025, releasing a software update to bypass the block. Since November 2024, Amazon had warned Perplexity no fewer than five times to stop accessing its platform through Comet.
As a result, Chesney found Amazon would likely suffer irreparable harm because Perplexity indicated it would continue its conduct without court intervention. That record positions the 9th Circuit’s willingness to grant a stay as the first indication that Perplexity’s legal arguments may carry enough weight for a full hearing. No clear precedent yet exists for distinguishing a user authorizing an AI agent from the platform authorizing that same agent.
Perplexity’s Response
Despite the lower court loss, Perplexity has framed the dispute as a consumer rights issue. In court filings, the company argued that blocking Comet on Amazon “would cause devastating harm to the company and consumers alike,” and told Reuters the lawsuit was really about protecting Amazon’s advertising revenue. Perplexity claimed AI agents “don’t have eyeballs to see the pervasive advertising Amazon bombards its users with.”
Additionally, in a November blog post, Perplexity called the lawsuit a bully tactic, arguing Amazon should welcome agentic shopping because it drives more transactions. However, Amazon had also accused Perplexity of disguising automated activity as human browsing and claimed the system posed security risks for customer data. Such allegations complicate Perplexity’s consumer-champion framing.
Broader Implications
Beyond the two companies, the case could reshape how platforms interact with AI agents. If AI shopping agents that buy products autonomously play a larger role in purchasing decisions, traditional retail media models could face pressure, particularly search-based ad auctions that depend on human browsing behavior. Amazon generated $68 billion in advertising sales in 2025, a business built on human shoppers who can be influenced by listing placements.
Meanwhile, Amazon’s position reveals a strategic tension: CEO Andy Jassy has acknowledged that agentic commerce has strong e-commerce potential yet the company is simultaneously suing a prominent agentic shopping tool. Amazon’s objection centers not on AI shopping itself but on controlling which agents operate within its platform. It already runs its own AI shopping tools, Rufus and Buy For Me.
Compounding that pressure, Perplexity’s decision to make the Comet browser free last October only intensified adoption on Amazon’s marketplace. WinBuzzer has previously covered the escalating conflict, including Amazon’s earlier inquiry into Perplexity for web scraping and Cloudflare’s accusations of stealth crawling practices.
Looking ahead, AI law attorney Jessica Eaves Mathews told The Daily Upside that possible outcomes range from a Supreme Court ruling to a settlement with a negotiated licensing deal. Amazon has been given time to respond to Perplexity’s stay motion, after which the 9th Circuit will determine whether the stay extends through the full appeal.
