• by Wendy Davis , 2 hours ago

Amazon is urging a federal appellate court to reconsider a recent ruling that allowed Perplexity's Comet assistant to continue shopping on Amazon.com, on behalf users.

In a petition filed Tuesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Amazon argues that the ruling in favor of Perplexity "degraded website owners’ ability to set the terms on which powerful, fast-evolving, and potentially destructive AI agents may enter their secure systems."

Amazon's argument comes in a legal battle dating to November, when the company alleged Perplexity's Comet browser shopped for users and made purchases on their behalf despite Amazon's attempt to implement technological blocks, and a cease-and-desist demand.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney in the Northern District of California sided with Amazon, ruling it would likely prove Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing Amazon users' accounts with their permission, but without Amazon's authorization. That law, introduced soon after the 1983 movie "WarGames" came out, includes provisions that prohibit companies from accessing other businesses' web servers without authorization.

Chesney issued an injunction banning Perplexity's shopping agent from Amazon.com, and directing Perplexity to destroy data obtained by Comet.

Perplexity immediately appealed to the 9th Circuit, which temporarily paused the injunction.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed Chesney's order and lifted the block, writing that an injunction "would impair consumer choice and needlessly limit development of a nascent technology."

The appellate judges added that Perplexity did not "access" Amazon's site, and therefore Amazon was unlikely to succeed with its claim that Perplexity violated the anti-hacking law.

"It is the user who 'accesses' Amazon’s computers, with the help of the Assistant to carry out specific acts on Amazon.com," Smith wrote. "To be sure, 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."

Amazon disagrees with that interpretation of Perplexity's activity.

"Users may or may not choose to access Amazon, but the assistant will access Amazon regardless, acting under Perplexity’s control," Amazon writes in its request for a new hearing. "The record shows that users may make generic requests such as 'order paper towels,' yet Perplexity’s 'reasoning layer' will direct the assistant to enter the Amazon store, present the user’s stored credentials, and click through secured pages."

Amazon adds: "In that sequence, the user never chose to visit the Amazon store and therefore did not access or direct the assistant to access the store. Perplexity made all the decisions and took all the actions."

The retailer is now seeking a new hearing in front of 11 of the 9th Circuit's judges.