How will computer-access laws be applied as agentic AI systems continue evolution from passive assistance to autonomous action?
By Mogin Law LLP
Earlier this year, we examined Amazon.com Services LLC’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI, Inc. as a potential early test of how long‑standing computer‑access statutes apply to emerging “agentic AI” systems—tools capable of autonomously or semi‑autonomously acting on a user’s behalf. Since then, the litigation has moved rapidly, producing a detailed judicial analysis of how courts may evaluate AI agents operating inside password‑protected consumer platforms.
On March 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Amazon’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 30, however, the court granted an administrative stay of its injunction pending appellate review by the Ninth Circuit.
User Permission is Not Platform Authorization
In a detailed order issued after a March 6 hearing, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney concluded that Amazon had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), and California Penal Code § 502(c)(7).
The dispute centers on Perplexity’s AI‑powered browser, Comet, which Amazon alleges accessed users’ password‑protected Amazon accounts while disguising itself as a standard web browser. Perplexity has maintained that Comet acts only at the direction of users who voluntarily provide their Amazon credentials.
Judge Chesney’s order draws a sharp distinction between user consent and platform authorization. The court found “strong evidence” that Comet accessed Amazon accounts with the Amazon user’s permission but without authorization by Amazon, obtained private account information, and transmitted that information to Perplexity’s servers to carry out user‑requested tasks.
Relying heavily on Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., the court emphasized that consent from users does not excuse continued access after a platform has expressly revoked authorization. Amazon’s cease‑and‑desist letter, the court concluded, was sufficient to terminate any authorization Perplexity might otherwise have claimed based on user permission alone.
CFAA “Loss” and Recent Supreme Court Guidance
The court also addressed whether Amazon had shown a cognizable “loss” under the CFAA, crediting evidence that Amazon spent more than $5,000 developing technical measures to detect and prevent Comet’s activity. While acknowledging commentary in Van Buren v. United States and hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. suggesting that CFAA loss may be limited to “technological harms,” Judge Chesney concluded that the question was likely to be resolved in Amazon’s favor.
In parallel, the court found a likelihood of success under California Penal Code § 502(c)(7), noting that the state statute does not raise the same doctrinal questions regarding loss.
Irreparable Harm, Equities, and the Public Interest
The court further held that Amazon faced a likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, citing Perplexity’s stated intention to continue the challenged conduct and case law recognizing unauthorized access to protected computer systems as irreparable injury.
Although Perplexity argued that an injunction would cost it market share, reputation, and its “first‑mover advantage” in AI‑assisted shopping, the court found that Comet would remain free to access the open web and emphasized the principle that harms flowing from allegedly unlawful conduct receive limited equitable weight.
Finally, the court rejected the notion that an injunction would undermine innovation or consumer choice, holding that the public also has a strong interest in preventing unauthorized access to computer systems.
The March 9 order enjoined Perplexity from accessing Amazon’s protected computer systems using AI agents, from creating or using Amazon accounts for that purpose, and required Perplexity to destroy Amazon data obtained through such access and certify compliance. The court denied Perplexity’s request for a stay pending appeal but granted a brief administrative stay to allow Perplexity to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit.
Updated Context: Related Litigation Involving Amazon’s Data Practices
The Amazon‑Perplexity dispute also unfolds against a broader litigation backdrop involving Amazon’s own data‑collection and disclosure practices.
Amazon has faced multiple consumer class actions challenging alleged data harvesting through its advertising technology, consolidated as In re Amazon Ads SDK Litigation, No. 2:25‑cv‑00252‑BJR (W.D. Wash.). Those cases were voluntarily dismissed in mid‑2025 without a ruling on the merits, leaving the underlying allegations unresolved but reflective of heightened scrutiny around ad‑tech data practices.
Separately, Amazon resolved a major Federal Trade Commission enforcement action in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23‑cv‑0932 (W.D. Wash.), resulting in a sweeping stipulated order addressing deceptive Prime enrollment and cancellation practices. While not a computer‑access case, the action produced significant judicial findings regarding consent and disclosure.
Most directly related, Amazon continues to litigate Garner v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21‑cv‑00750‑RSL (W.D. Wash.), a nationwide class action alleging that Alexa devices recorded and retained private voice interactions without adequate notice or consent. In July 2025, the court granted class certification, finding common questions regarding Amazon’s disclosures and data‑retention practices.
These matters place Amazon in a dual posture—as both an enforcer of access controls against third parties and a defendant in litigation over its own data practices. That juxtaposition does not determine the merits of the Perplexity case, but it underscores the broader legal environment in which courts are being asked to define authorization, consent, and transparency in AI‑mediated systems.
Looking Ahead
For now, the district court’s injunction is stayed, and the Ninth Circuit will likely have the next word on whether enforcement resumes during the appeal. Regardless of the immediate procedural outcome, Judge Chesney’s March 9 order stands as one of the clearest judicial statements to date on a question that will recur with increasing frequency: when an AI agent acts for a user, whose authorization matters—the user’s, the platform’s, or both?
As agentic AI systems continue to move from passive assistance to autonomous action, Amazon v. Perplexity offers an early glimpse of how existing computer‑access laws may be applied to that evolution.
Edited by Tom Hagy, Editor-in-Chief, Mogin Law Blog.
Contact Us
Attorneys and individuals: To set up a consultation to discuss topics like these, contact us at Info@MoginLawLLP.com. Attorneys are also invited to read more about our referral program.
Editors and reporters writing about antitrust may reach us at Media@MoginLawLLP.com.