Amazon Wins Court Order to Block Perplexity's AI Shopping Agent — A Legal Boundary Is Drawn for Agentic Commerce

Federal Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Perplexity's AI Agent

Amazon wins court order to block Perplexity's AI shopping agent

Amazon sued Perplexity in November, accusing the startup of concealing its AI shopping agents.

On March 10, 2026, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Perplexity's AI browser "Comet" from accessing Amazon's website. This marks the first major judicial ruling on AI agent access to EC platforms in the lawsuit Amazon filed in November 2025.

Perplexity's "Comet" is a browser that allows users to have an AI assistant search for and purchase products on Amazon on their behalf. Amazon alleged in its complaint that the tool "concealed the AI agent's identity" and accessed the site by disguising itself as a regular Google Chrome session.

Background and Industry Trends

At the heart of this lawsuit lies a battle over platform control in agentic commerce — the framework where AI agents search, compare, and purchase products on behalf of consumers.

Since November 2024, Amazon warned Perplexity at least five times to cease Comet's access. In August 2025, Amazon took technical measures to block Comet, but Perplexity reportedly circumvented the block with a software update within 24 hours. This cat-and-mouse game led to the formal lawsuit in November 2025.

Meanwhile, AI-powered shopping is rapidly expanding. As numerous AI agents including OpenAI's ChatGPT enter the EC space, Amazon has been developing its own AI shopping assistants "Rufus" and "Buy For Me" while broadly blocking external AI agents. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy himself has acknowledged that "agentic commerce could be a significant opportunity for EC," while noting that current AI agents fall short in personalization and price accuracy.

The Core of the Ruling: Separating "User Permission" from "Platform Consent"

The most noteworthy aspect of this ruling is Judge Chesney's clear distinction between "user permission" and "platform consent."

The judge found that Amazon presented "strong evidence" that Perplexity's Comet browser accessed password-protected accounts "with the permission of Amazon users, but without Amazon's consent." This means that even if consumers authorize an AI agent to act on their behalf, it may violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California's computer fraud laws if the platform has not approved that access.

In its complaint, Amazon cited multiple risks posed by Perplexity's agent. First, the security risk of AI agents "operating within private customer accounts that require passwords." Additionally, Amazon argued that new systems would need to be developed to detect and filter AI-generated ad traffic, and that maintaining contractual obligations to advertisers would incur additional costs. Amazon stated it spent over $5,000 in response and that employees devoted "substantial time" to blocking Comet and preventing future unauthorized access.

Perplexity, for its part, characterized the lawsuit as "bullying tactics". Since AI agents bypass advertising, Perplexity argued that Amazon's true motive is eliminating competition to its own AI shopping tools and protecting ad revenue. Perplexity commented that it would "continue fighting for the right of internet users to choose their preferred AI."

The judge rejected Perplexity's request for a $1 billion bond. Comet remains available on all websites other than Amazon, and the court determined that the restraining order does not threaten Perplexity's overall business. The order includes a seven-day grace period for enforcement, and Perplexity has already filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Impact and Implications for EC Merchants

This ruling carries several important implications for EC merchants.

AI agent access policies must be established. Now that the court has recognized a platform's "right of consent," EC merchants should develop policies explicitly permitting or denying AI agent access to their sites. Reviewing terms of service and robots.txt is a concrete first step.

The impact on advertising business models must be assessed. When AI agents complete purchases without displaying ads, it directly affects retail media revenue. The fact that Amazon explicitly cited the impact on its advertising system in its complaint underscores the severity of this issue.

Investment decisions in proprietary AI tools are critical. Amazon's strategy of blocking external agents while strengthening its own Rufus and Buy For Me suggests the direction major platforms are heading. Small and mid-sized EC merchants face a strategic choice: provide their own AI shopping experience or position open agent access as a competitive differentiator.

Strengthening security measures is essential. When AI agents perform automated operations using users' authentication credentials, detecting unauthorized access and identifying bot traffic becomes more important than ever.

Conclusion

The Amazon vs. Perplexity ruling could become the first significant precedent in shaping the legal framework for agentic commerce. The determination that "user permission alone is insufficient without platform consent" establishes clear constraints on the scope of AI agent activity.

The outcome of Perplexity's appeal and the final ruling in this lawsuit will undoubtedly have a major impact on the formation of rules across agentic commerce as a whole. For EC merchants, this ruling signals the time to begin reconsidering access policies, security measures, and business models for the age of AI agents.