A U.S. appeals court has ruled in favor of Perplexity, rejecting Amazon's attempt to prove the AI search company violated federal hacking laws. The decision marks the first appellate ruling on whether AI agents can legally act on behalf of users online.
Appeals Court Sides with Perplexity on Hacking Claims
The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Amazon had argued that Perplexity's AI agents, which browse the web and perform tasks for users, violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The court disagreed, saying Amazon is unlikely to succeed on that claim.
The case is one of the first to test how existing computer fraud laws apply to AI agents. These are programs that can navigate websites, fill out forms, and take actions as if they were a human user. Amazon claimed that Perplexity's agents accessed its servers without authorization.
First Appellate Decision on AI Agents
Legal experts have been watching this case closely because it sets a precedent for how courts treat AI agents under the CFAA. The law was written decades ago, long before AI agents became common. The appeals court's decision suggests that simply using an AI agent to browse a public website does not count as unauthorized access.
The ruling is not a final judgment. It only says Amazon is unlikely to win at this stage, so the case can proceed. But the court's reasoning could influence other lawsuits involving AI agents and web scraping.
What the Ruling Means for the Industry
For companies building AI agents, the decision provides some legal breathing room. They can argue that their tools are acting on behalf of users who have permission to access websites. Amazon and other platforms may need to update their terms of service or use technical measures to block AI agents if they want to prevent them.
The case continues in lower court. Amazon has not said whether it will appeal further or seek other legal remedies. The outcome could shape how AI agents are regulated in the United States.
