• by Wendy Davis , 2 hours ago

Perplexity late Wednesday asked a federal appellate court to vacate an injunction that would ban the artificial intelligence company's shopping agent, Comet, from Amazon.

The ban, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney in the Northern District of California, was temporarily stayed late last month.

Perplexity's move comes in a dispute dating to November, when Amazon claimed the artificial intelligence company was violating a 40-year-old anti-hacking law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by "trespassing" into Amazon's server.

The retailer alleged that Perplexity's 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.

Chesney said in a March 9 ruling that Amazon was likely to prevail with its legal claim and issued an order prohibiting Comet from continuing to access the retail site.

Perplexity, which is appealing that order, disputes that it violated the anti-hacking law. That statute broadly prohibits anyone from accessing a computer server without authorization.

"Amazon's theory ... represents an alarming expansion of the CFAA and corresponding state law," Perplexity argues, using an acronym for the anti-hacking law.

"Deploying that theory against Perplexity in this suit threatens competition and consumer choice during a critical moment in the development of AI," Perplexity adds.

Among other arguments, Perplexity contends that it doesn't actually "access" Amazon. Instead, according to Perplexity, consumers themselves use Comet to access Amazon.

"A Comet user accessing Amazon from her own computer is no more equivalent to Perplexity accessing Amazon than a Safari user accessing Amazon from her own computer is equivalent to Apple accessing Amazon," Perplexity argues.

The company also argues that even if the appellate judges believe its shopping agent accessed Amazon, the access would have been authorized by Amazon consumers.

"Amazon account holders authorized the [shopping agent] to access their own private information ... to facilitate shopping on Amazon.com conduct," Perplexity writes.

Perplexity additionally argues that Amazon failed to prove it would suffer "irreparable harm" without an injunction, noting that the shopping agent was available for eight months before Chesney issued an order banning it.

"Even after eight months of the Assistant's operation, Amazon did not submit any evidence of harm to its reputation or goodwill: no declaration from a dissatisfied customer, no survey showing reputational damage, no data showing decreased traffic or lost sales," Perplexity writes.

Amazon is expected to respond to Perplexity's argument by April 22.