Perplexity is asking a California court to dismiss Amazon’s expanded lawsuit over its Comet AI shopping agent, including a new claim about interference with customer contracts. The dispute tests how far retailers can use website terms and computer-access laws to control AI agents acting for shoppers.
Perplexity Watch analysis
What happened
In a motion filed on 13 October, Perplexity argues Amazon’s amended complaint does not make a viable case for tortious interference with contract. The Fashion Law reports that Perplexity says Amazon has not identified a specific contractual counterparty or shown the independently wrongful conduct it says California law requires.
Amazon alleges that Perplexity knowingly enabled Comet to access its marketplace despite restrictions in Amazon’s Conditions of Use. Those terms, introduced in May 2025, require automated agents to identify themselves, prohibit circumvention of technical access controls and restrict access after Amazon tells an agent to stop, according to the report.
The case also includes disputed computer-access claims. The Ninth Circuit vacated an earlier preliminary injunction and found Amazon unlikely to succeed on those claims at that stage. Amazon’s amended complaint adds separate allegations about Comet for iOS and the use of customers’ authentication cookies. Perplexity says users initiate and direct the assistant’s activity. These are opposing legal arguments and allegations, not findings that either side has proved its case.
Why it matters
An AI shopping agent sits between a customer and a retailer’s website. If retailers can enforce terms against agents used by their customers, those terms could shape which assistants can shop, and on what conditions. If the court rejects Amazon’s claims, that would not automatically make every form of automated access lawful; the arguments and the law are narrower than a grand ruling on whether the internet belongs to bots now.
Our read
The practical question is not simply whether Comet can reach a product page. It is who controls the rules when a shopper delegates the task: the retailer setting access conditions, the agent provider, or the customer whose account is being used. Keep the distinction between allegations and rulings firmly in view. The Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision concerned preliminary computer-access claims, not the merits of Amazon’s newer contract-interference claim.
What to watch
- Whether the court grants or denies Perplexity’s motion to dismiss.
- How the court treats Amazon’s contract-interference theory separately from its computer-access claims.
- Whether further filings clarify the dispute over Comet for iOS and customer authentication cookies.
Discussion spark: When a shopper authorises an AI agent to use a retailer’s site, should the retailer’s terms bind the agent provider too, or only the customer?
Sources and evidence
- Amazon’s AI Shopping Battle Puts Website Terms to the Test (16 October 2026, 13:11 UTC)
not affiliated with or endorsed by Perplexity