• by Wendy Davis , March 17, 2026

A federal appellate panel has granted Perplexity's emergency petition to lift an injunction that would have banned the artificial intelligence company's shopping agent, Comet, from Amazon.

But the reprieve, issued Monday by a two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, could be short-lived. Circuit Judges Eric Miller and Patrick Bumatay said their administrative order lifting the injunction is temporary, and will last only until the circuit court has more thoroughly examined the issue and rendered a decision on the merits.

The appellate judges' move marks the latest development in a legal battle that began in November, when Amazon sued Perplexity for allegedly "trespassing" into Amazon's server.

The retailer alleged that Perplexity, through the Comet browser, shopped for users and made purchases on their behalf -- even after Amazon attempted to implement technological blocks and sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter.

Amazon claimed Perplexity was violating the 1986 federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits companies from accessing computer servers without permission, as well as a California state anti-hacking law.

On March 9, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney in the Northern District of California granted Amazon's request to prohibit Perplexity's shopping agent from continuing to access the retailer's site, and ordered the artificial intelligence company to destroy data obtained by Comet.

Chesney said in a written ruling that Amazon would likely prevail with its claim that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing Amazon.com without its authorization. She wrote that Amazon provided "strong evidence" that Perplexity's Comet browser access the site with users' consent -- but without authorization by Amazon.

Late last week, Perplexity asked the 9th Circuit to stay the injunction on an emergency basis.

Among other arguments, Perplexity says its browser doesn't "access" Amazon for purposes of the anti-hacking law. Instead, Perplexity argues, consumers are the ones who access the retailer's servers.

"At bottom, the only relevant access to Amazon’s servers was by users of the Comet browser -- not by Perplexity," the company argued.

Perplexity also argued that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act doesn't prohibit companies from accessing public websites, such as Amazon.com.

Amazon opposed Perplexity's request for an emergency stay, arguing to the 9th Circuit that Chesney's ruling "is amply supported by the law and the facts."

Perplexity is expected to file additional arguments with the 9th Circuit by April 8.