Jump to content

Amazon.com Services LLC v Perplexity AI Inc

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.[1]
Court N.D. Cal.; Ninth Circuit on appeal.[1]
Docket 3:25-cv-09514-MMC; appeal 26-1444.[1]
Filed November 4, 2025.[2]
Judge(s) Maxine M. Chesney (district court); Milan D. Smith Jr., Eric C. Tung and John Charles Hinderaker (appeal).[1]
Plaintiffs Amazon.com Services, LLC.[1]
Defendants Perplexity AI, Inc.[1]
Case type Civil computer-access litigation.[1]
Claims / issues CFAA, California CDAFA and tortious-interference claims concerning the Comet AI Assistant.[3]
Status October 13, 2026: Perplexity moved to dismiss the first amended complaint and to stay discovery; the court separately referred Amazon’s discovery motion to a magistrate judge.[4][5] Previously, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc on September 10, 2026.[6]

Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc. concerns Amazon’s claims that Perplexity’s Comet AI Assistant violated federal and California computer-access laws.[1]

Preliminary-injunction appeal

On August 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded. It concluded that Amazon was unlikely to establish that Perplexity itself accessed Amazon’s computers for CFAA purposes. The decision concerned preliminary relief, not a final dismissal of the lawsuit.[1]

September 10, 2026 rehearing order

The court denied rehearing en banc. Judges Smith and Tung voted against rehearing, and Judge Hinderaker recommended denial; no judge requested a full-court vote. The order also granted leave to file an amicus brief.[6]

September 21, 2026 amended complaint

Amazon filed a first amended complaint after the preliminary-injunction appeal returned the case to the district court. The pleading asserts claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California tortious-interference law.[3] Amazon alleges that Comet for iOS copied users’ Amazon authentication cookies and session data to Perplexity’s cloud servers, which then used the credentials in a virtual browser to request password-protected Amazon pages. Amazon also alleges that this architecture operated from March 18 until at least May 11, 2026, and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The allegations have not been adjudicated.[3]

October 13, 2026 dismissal and discovery motions

Perplexity moved to dismiss Amazon’s first amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and asked to stay discovery under Rule 26(c)(1) while the motion is decided. If the federal CFAA claim is dismissed but the state-law claims otherwise survive, it alternatively asks the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).[4]

Perplexity argues that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of computer access defeats the amended CFAA and CDAFA claims, including the allegations about Comet for iOS. It also disputes authorization and alleged recoverable loss. Against the contract-interference claim, Perplexity characterizes Amazon’s customer terms as an at-will agreement requiring independently wrongful conduct and argues that Amazon has not sufficiently identified a contractual counterparty or intentional interference. These are Perplexity’s arguments on the amended pleading, not a ruling dismissing the claims or invalidating Amazon’s terms.[4]

In a separate October 13 order, Judge Chesney referred Amazon’s October 12 motion to compel discovery, and further discovery matters, to a magistrate judge. The order directs a meet-and-confer process and joint discovery letter and vacates the November 20 hearing on Amazon’s motion before Judge Chesney. It does not grant Perplexity’s requested dismissal or discovery stay.[5]

On September 20, 2026, GeekWire reported that Amazon blocked Meta’s Muse shopping agent, citing its Conditions of Use and concerns about undisclosed access and credentials. Meta’s launch materials describe protected credential storage and approval before purchases.[7][8] See September 21 coverage of this separate platform dispute.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Ninth Circuit, No. 26-1444, opinion, August 4, 2026, pp. 1, 5, 8.
  2. ↑ Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC, complaint, ECF 1, court filing stamp November 4, 2025.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC, first amended complaint, ECF 122, filed September 21, 2026, pp. 1–8, 24–26, 31–35.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 N.D. Cal., Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC, ECF 129, motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and stay discovery, October 13, 2026, pp. 1–33.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 N.D. Cal., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC, ECF 128, order referring Amazon’s discovery motion to a magistrate judge, October 13, 2026, p. 1.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ninth Circuit, No. 26-1444, ECF 71.1, order denying rehearing en banc, September 10, 2026.
  7. ↑ Todd Bishop, GeekWire, “Amazon blocks Meta’s Muse AI assistant in new standoff over agentic shopping,” September 20, 2026.
  8. ↑ Meta, “Introducing Muse,” September 8, 2026, security and privacy description.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Amazon.com_Services_LLC_v_Perplexity_AI_Inc&oldid=6803"