A Ninth Circuit ruling narrows Amazon’s CFAA challenge against Perplexity’s AI shopping agent, saying it’s unlikely the act of an agent acting for a user constitutes hacking under the law.

The court overturned the lower court’s injunction, allowing Perplexity to continue using its Comet-powered, AI-driven shopping tools on Amazon while the case proceeds.

The decision emphasizes user choice and maintains that a user’s authorization should extend to the AI agent acting on their behalf, not criminalize ordinary tool use.

The article frames the ruling as part of ongoing litigation with upcoming developments and potential appeals in this evolving area of AI and platform access law.

The ruling provides a narrow interpretation of CFAA liability and leaves open further appeals or proceedings rather than establishing a broad framework for agentic AI.

Beyond this case, the ruling sparks questions about liability when agents act and the possible impact on retail economics if agentic tools bypass traditional search and recommendation systems.

This piece is auto-generated from a syndicated feed and not edited by staff.

The story was first published in early August 2026 and highlights growing scrutiny of agentic AI in shopping and other tasks.

The decision aligns with earlier CFAA interpretations, extending access principles from public data to interactive agent actions within a user session.

The developments have potential implications for Chinese AI firms and cross-platform data use under Chinese law, while debating whether user authorization could conflict with platform terms of service.

The ruling signals an architecture-dependent liability framework, suggesting developers design systems where servers do not directly touch third-party servers to avoid CFAA liability and reinforcing the role of terms of service and contract law.

Amicus briefs and footnotes stress preserving user choice and avoiding criminalizing ordinary users, rather than broad expansions of criminal liability.