A US federal appeals court is examining whether a 1986 computer fraud statute applies to Perplexity AI's agentic shopping tool allegedly accessing Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) customer accounts without authorisation, in a case with sweeping implications for AI agent liability.

Key Highlights

  • The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) vs Perplexity AI, a landmark agentic AI legal case.
  • The case centres on whether Perplexity's Comet browser AI agent unlawfully accessed Amazon customer accounts under a 1986 computer fraud law.
  • A lower court previously blocked Perplexity from using its AI shopping agent on Amazon, finding strong evidence of unlawful access.
  • The panel questioned whether the AI agent or its human user bears legal responsibility for platform access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
  • The case is one of the first to address who is liable for the autonomous actions of agentic AI systems.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case that may set a foundational legal precedent for how agentic AI systems are regulated under existing US law. The dispute between Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) and AI startup Perplexity AI centres on whether Perplexity's autonomous shopping agent unlawfully accessed private Amazon customer accounts through its Comet browser.

Amazon filed the original lawsuit in November 2025, alleging that Perplexity's agentic AI system covertly logged into and transacted on behalf of Amazon customers without the platform's authorisation. A federal court in California subsequently issued a preliminary injunction blocking Perplexity from using its agent on Amazon, finding that Amazon had presented substantial evidence of unauthorised system access.

The appeals panel grappled with a fundamental interpretive question: whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, enacted in 1986 to address human hackers accessing computer systems, can be meaningfully applied to an AI agent that receives login credentials from a human user and then independently accesses a third-party platform.

One panel member framed the analogy as a user handing a key to Perplexity, which then enters Amazon's systems autonomously. The question of whether an AI agent can possess the legal "intent" required for a fraud conviction was raised directly from the bench, highlighting the gap between existing legal frameworks and modern AI system capabilities.

The case has significant implications across the AI industry. If courts hold AI companies liable for the autonomous access decisions of their agents, it could impose new design constraints on agentic AI products that currently operate with limited human oversight. Alternatively, a ruling that places liability solely on human users could create accountability gaps for harmful AI agent behaviour.

For AMZN stock investors, the primary concern is protecting the integrity of Amazon's platform and customer data from AI agents operating without Amazon's consent. A favourable ruling would strengthen Amazon's ability to enforce access terms against autonomous AI shopping tools across its e-commerce ecosystem.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial adviser before making investment decisions.