Appeals court temporarily lets Perplexity keep Comet shopping bots running on Amazon

Perplexity temporarily avoided blocking its Comet shopping agent on Amazon: a U.S. appeals court suspended the implementation of a stricter ruling from the lower court. For the company, this is not a substantive victory, but a reprieve that allows the service to operate while the dispute continues.

What the court decided

Just before the ban was to take effect, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave Perplexity an administrative stay. This means the preliminary injunction, which was supposed to stop Comet from operating within Amazon, does not take effect for now. The court did not say Perplexity was ultimately right; it merely froze the execution of the lower court's decision pending consideration of further motions.

Previously, on March 9, 2026, the federal court in the Northern District of California sided with Amazon. Judge Maxine Chesney concluded that Amazon presented strong arguments that Comet gains access to protected sections of the site with user permission, but without the platform's permission. Separately, the court noted that Amazon would likely be able to prove a violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Unauthorized Computer Access Law.

"With user permission, but without Amazon's permission."

The source of the dispute

The root of the conflict lies in who exactly controls the actions of an AI agent within a user account. Amazon filed suit against Perplexity back in November 2025. The retailer's position boils down to the claim that Comet does not simply open public pages, but accesses protected account sections, uses automated scripts, masks such activity as ordinary browsing, and ignores direct requests to cease access.

Perplexity responds differently. According to the company, Comet acts as a browser assistant within a user session: the person themselves launches the agent, authorizes themselves, and permits key actions. In court documents, Perplexity also claimed that logins, payment data, and action history are not sent to its servers, but are stored locally on the user's device. From this, the startup's main argument follows: if a user has the right to instruct a browser with a task, the platform should not receive exclusive control over which tool the person uses.

This dispute quickly expanded beyond a single Comet function. In essence, courts are now testing whether user consent is sufficient for an AI agent to operate, or whether the service also needs separate permission from the platform itself. For the entire category of agentic commerce, this is one of the first major stress tests.

What was under the ban

If the March 9 decision had taken effect without a pause, Perplexity would have had to sharply limit Comet's operation on Amazon. The preliminary injunction included several specific requirements:

• prohibition on accessing Amazon's protected systems using AI agents;
• prohibition on using, creating, or capturing Amazon accounts for the purpose of running such agents;
• requirement to destroy copies of Amazon data, including user data obtained through Comet;
• obligation to notify employees and contractors of the ban and then report on compliance.

For Perplexity, this would have been a painful blow not just to one feature, but to the entire strategy around Comet. In its court documents, the company warned that it would lose first-mover advantage in AI shopping, part of its market share, and the ability to rapidly improve the product on real-world scenarios. It even asked the court to require Amazon to post a bond of at least $1 billion in case the ban was mistaken, but the court rejected that request.

For now, the appeals court has given the company only a brief reprieve. This is an important nuance: the ban has not been overturned, but temporarily paused while Perplexity's broader request for a stay pending appeal is considered.

What this means

The Amazon v. Perplexity case is becoming one of the first major lawsuits where the question is not about ordinary web scraping, but about the right of AI agents to act within user accounts. If courts ultimately support Amazon, large platforms will gain a strong argument for restricting third-party shopping agents. If Perplexity prevails, users will be able to much more freely delegate to the browser purchases and other routine online tasks.