In a decision summarised by the law firm Ballard Spahr in August, the Ninth Circuit appeals court set aside an injunction Amazon had obtained against Comet, Perplexity's browser assistant. The court's reasoning turned on the federal anti-hacking statute.
Nothing broke here; this file is about responsibility. Under that statute, the court held, access is carried out by the human directing the agent, with the agent serving only as the means. That frames an agent's actions in a signed-in account as the actions of its owner, for better and for worse.
The ruling leaves Amazon's contract claims undecided, including whether agents break the terms a site sets for its users, and those claims continue. How other courts will treat agents, and whether the same logic reaches beyond shopping, remains open.
Who was affected
Users and makers of shopping agents
The lesson: Assume that whatever your agent does inside an account signed in under your name will be counted as your own conduct. Hand it only those permissions you would happily exercise in person.