Perplexity Comet hurtling toward Amazon ban

Summary

A US court has granted Amazon a preliminary injunction that would bar Perplexity’s AI browser Comet from accessing Amazon’s website. The injunction is administratively stayed for seven days to allow Perplexity to appeal. The judge found Amazon likely to succeed on claims that Comet accessed password‑protected Amazon accounts without Amazon’s authorisation and that Perplexity disguised its automated browser to appear as a normal customer. If the injunction stands, Perplexity must stop Comet’s access to Amazon’s protected systems and destroy data obtained via those accesses. Perplexity insists its agents act like user‑hired assistants; the ruling signals tighter legal limits on automated shopping agents.

Key Points

The court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Perplexity’s Comet from accessing Amazon’s site, but delayed enforcement for seven days to allow an appeal.
The judge concluded Amazon is likely to prevail on federal and state computer fraud claims, finding Comet accessed users’ password‑protected accounts without Amazon’s authorisation.
If upheld, the injunction would require Perplexity to cease access and destroy data gathered from Amazon accounts.
Amazon alleges Perplexity disguised its automated browser to look like a standard Chrome user and required customers to expose credentials, creating security risks.
Perplexity argues AI agents are equivalent to human assistants or employees; the ruling illustrates the legal friction facing the ‘agent economy’ and shopping bots.

Content Summary

The court found strong evidence that Perplexity’s Comet, acting on users’ requests, accessed Amazon accounts without Amazon’s authorisation and transmitted private account information to Perplexity’s servers. Amazon had argued Perplexity ignored cease‑and‑desist demands and degraded customer security by having users give credentials to a browser with documented vulnerabilities. Perplexity maintains users should be able to choose AI assistants. The judge sided with Amazon on the likelihood of success and irreparable harm; the temporary stay gives Perplexity a short window to seek appellate relief.

Context and Relevance

This case is a pivotal test of whether AI agents can legally act on users’ behalf to interact with commercial websites. It affects platform security, terms‑of‑service enforcement and how developers design agents that log into third‑party sites. Platforms are already tightening rules (for example, eBay moved to ban shopping bots earlier this year), and this ruling could accelerate similar policies and litigation across the industry.

Why should I read this?

Short version: if you build, use or rely on AI agents, shopping bots or automated website logins, this could change the game. Lawsuits like this may force new agreements, block certain agent behaviours, and make handing credentials to experimental browsers a legal and security headache. Read it so you know whether your tech or business model needs a rethink — or whether you should stop letting beta agents log in to your accounts.

Author style

Punchy: this isn’t a tiny procedural tiff — it’s a legal reality check for the whole “AI does my shopping” dream. If you work on agentic AI, platform policy or e‑commerce tech, the details here are essential; if not, consider this a useful heads‑up we’ve already read so you don’t have to.

Source

Source: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2026/03/11/perplexity_comet_amazon_ban/