9th Circuit: a user's AI agent counts as the user, not a bot
The 9th Circuit reversed Amazon's ban on Perplexity's Comet — the first appeals-court precedent that user-directed agents can legally reach a platform.
Copy markdown
The precedent: user consent is authorization
The 9th Circuit held that when you point an agent at a site, you're the one accessing it — so Amazon's CFAA 'unauthorized access' claim is unlikely to win. It's the first federal appeals ruling on whether user-directed AI agents can legally use a platform.
What flips: the March injunction is lifted
A California judge blocked Comet from shopping on Amazon in March, citing 'strong evidence' of computer-fraud violations. That ban is gone while the case proceeds, so agentic checkout on Amazon is live again for Perplexity users.
Why Amazon fought it: agents that log in as you
Amazon says Comet masqueraded as plain Chrome, signed into customer accounts, and placed orders after a cease-and-desist — even patching around a technical block within 24 hours. The court still sided with user authorization over platform permission.
For you: firmer ground for 'act-as-me' agents
If you build agents that log into sites and act on someone's behalf — shopping, booking, filing — the 'it's just a bot' CFAA theory just weakened in the 9th Circuit. Caveat: it's a preliminary-injunction reversal, not final law, and binds only the west.