Suit says Perplexity AI masquerades as an Amazon shopper to nab customer data.
With a hearing on Amazon’s motion for a preliminary injunction just two weeks away, litigation between Amazon.com Services LLC and Perplexity AI, Inc. is one to watch as artificial intelligence plays an increasing role in our personal and business lives.
Sparking questions around compliance, transparency, and cybersecurity, Amazon’s suit against Perplexity alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The e-commerce and hyperscaler giant filed suit against the agentic AI browser company in federal court for California’s Northern District in November.
What is Agentic AI?
Agentic AI refers to artificial intelligence systems that can take actions autonomously to pursue a goal, rather than only responding passively to user prompts. Agentic AI systems like Auto‑GPT and BabyAGI can break a high‑level goal into steps, choose which tools to use, and execute tasks autonomously until the objective is reached. Enterprise agents—such as Microsoft Copilot Studio agents or AWS Agents for Bedrock—go further by taking real actions inside business systems, like updating records, triggering workflows, or handling customer requests without human prompting.
What are the allegations and alleged statutory violations?
At the heart of the dispute is Perplexity’s AI-powered browser, Comet, which Amazon claims was used to surreptitiously access private customer accounts on the Amazon Store. According to Amazon, Comet’s agentic AI enables users to automate tasks such as browsing, shopping, and placing orders—but does so by misrepresenting itself as Google Chrome, circumventing both Amazon’s Conditions of Use and built-in technological defenses.
In its complaint, Amazon likens Perplexity’s alleged conduct to a digital trespass, stating, “No different than any other intruder, Perplexity is not allowed to go where it has been expressly told it cannot; that Perplexity’s trespass involves code rather than a lockpick makes it no less unlawful.” Perplexity’s actions have led to security risks for customer data, degraded user experiences, and disruptions to Amazon’s systems, the company maintains.
Claiming violations of the CFAA, Amazon contends Perplexity knowingly accessed protected computers without authorization, obtaining sensitive customer information and causing damages exceeding $5,000 within a year. The CFAA targets unauthorized computer access and fraudulent activity across state lines.
Asserting violations of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Amazon alleges that Perplexity accessed, copied, and altered data from its systems without consent, in violation of multiple provisions of California Penal Code Section 502.
What issues does this case raise for attorneys and companies?
Attorneys and executives in the tech sector will want to give more thought to key concepts raised by the case.
Compliance with Terms of Use: Businesses must ensure that their products and services abide by the terms of third-party platforms. Amazon asserts that Perplexity breached its Conditions of Use—specifically, the Agent Terms mandating transparent identification of AI agents and prohibiting concealment of activities.
Transparency in AI Deployment: Amazon’s frustration is evident: “Perplexity falsely identifies its Comet AI agent activity as coming from Google Chrome… Perplexity’s Comet AI agent covertly poses as a human customer shopping in the Amazon Store on a Google Chrome browser.” Is your company or client adopting clear disclosures?
Cybersecurity Risks: Amazon alleges that Perplexity circumvented technical safeguards, exposing vulnerabilities that could be exploited by cybercriminals to “hijack[] the AI assistant embedded in the browser to steal data.” Is your company or client implementing robust and effective cybersecurity protocols in compliance with data protection laws?
Irreparable Harm and Injunctive Relief: Amazon is seeking an injunction to curtail further unauthorized access and avert irreparable harm to its reputation, customer trust, and business operations. As noted in the complaint, “Amazon’s harms are increased by Comet’s well-documented security vulnerabilities and the danger those vulnerabilities create for Amazon customers.” The case underscores the value of equitable remedies in situations involving ongoing harm.
Finally, Amazon asserts, “Perplexity’s pattern is clear: when confronted, it denies; when blocked, it evades; and when warned, it persists.” Perplexity counters, calling the suit an “exclusionary tactic” designed to safeguard Amazon’s own emerging AI initiatives. The hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for February 13.
Is Amazon shadowboxing?
Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI comes at a time when the company itself is grappling with allegations over its data access practices and consumer privacy protections.
Over the past year, Amazon has faced multiple class actions—now consolidated as In re Amazon Ads SDK Litigation, Case No. 2:25‑cv‑00252‑BJR (W.D. Wash.)—alleging that its Amazon Ads SDK (Software Development Kit) secretly collected and monetized sensitive user information, including timestamped geolocation data and personal attributes such as religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and health‑related details, all allegedly gathered without user knowledge or consent.
A federal court has likewise ruled, in Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:23‑cv‑0932 (W.D. Wash.), that Amazon’s data‑collection and disclosure practices violated federal consumer‑protection laws, adding significant judicial weight to concerns about how the company gathers and uses customer information.
At the same time, Amazon continues to face substantial litigation over allegations that its Alexa devices recorded, stored, and repurposed private voice interactions without adequate notice or consent—a dispute now proceeding as a nationwide class action following July 2025 certification in Kaeli Garner v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:21‑cv‑00750‑RSL (W.D. Wash.).
Against this backdrop, Amazon’s decision to pursue Perplexity for improper access to customer account data introduces an additional layer of complexity — positioning the company simultaneously as both an enforcer of data‑security norms and a frequent target of similar claims. Amazon’s situation is one in which it is both lodging and dodging allegations that are at least thematically similar.
