By JD Supra
Publication Date: 2026-03-31 00:00:00
How will computer-access laws be applied as agentic AI systems continue evolution from passive assistance to autonomous action?
Earlier this year, we examined Amazon.com Services LLC’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI, Inc. as a potential early test of how long‑standing computer‑access statutes apply to emerging “agentic AI” systems—tools capable of autonomously or semi‑autonomously acting on a user’s behalf. Since then, the litigation has moved rapidly, producing a detailed judicial analysis of how courts may evaluate AI agents operating inside password‑protected consumer platforms.
On March 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Amazon’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 30, however, the court granted an administrative stay of its injunction pending appellate review by the Ninth Circuit.
User Permission is Not Platform Authorization
In a detailed order issued after a March 6 hearing, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney concluded that Amazon had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), and California Penal Code § 502(c)(7).
The dispute centers on Perplexity’s AI‑powered browser, Comet, which Amazon alleges accessed users’ password‑protected Amazon accounts while disguising itself as a standard web browser. Perplexity has maintained that Comet acts only at the direction of users who…
