In a closely-watched dispute between Amazon and Perplexity AI, the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had prevented the use of Perplexity’s agentic browser tool on Amazon.com. The appellate panel concluded that Amazon is unlikely to succeed on its claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) because, on the current record, it is the user – not Perplexity – that “accesses” Amazon’s computers. The case centers on Comet, Perplexity’s AI-enabled browser, whose optional AI assistant takes screenshots of the browser view, sends them from the user’s computer to Perplexity’s servers, and receives instructions on how to navigate Amazon. In its November 2025 complaint, Amazon brought claims under the CFAA and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”), alleging that Comet accessed Amazon.com without authorization. The Northern District of California had earlier granted a preliminary injunction, finding strong evidence that Perplexity accessed users’ password-protected accounts without authorization. In an August 4 opinion, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that Perplexity itself does not directly communicate with Amazon’s servers and that its receipt of screenshots and transmission of instructions did not establish that it gained entry to Amazon’s servers. The judges acknowledged that “agentic AI is an emerging technology” with “little to no existing caselaw” on ascribing responsibility, and that imposing CFAA liability