Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.

Case posture

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 122, ¶¶ 87–120) [§ 51], Amazon asserts claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) and Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2)–(4), (7), and for tortious interference with contractual relations, concerning Perplexity’s alleged agentic access to private customer accounts. The court ruling (ECF No. 81, at 2–8) [§ 101]: on March 9, 2026, the district court granted a preliminary injunction based on preliminary likelihood findings under the CFAA and California computer-access statute and the equitable factors, not a final merits adjudication. As stated by the appellate court on interlocutory appeal (No. 26-1444, Dkt. 61.1, slip op. at 14–21) [§ 102], the court vacated that injunction and remanded after concluding, on the record presented, that the user accesses Amazon’s computers with the Comet Assistant as a tool, Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the access prong of its CFAA and CDAFA claims, and the equitable factors did not otherwise strongly favor an injunction; it did not reach the remaining CFAA factors. According to the court docket (public RECAP feed through ECF No. 133 and an October 30, 2026 minute entry; ECF Nos. 121–122, 129, 132–133) [§ 152], the mandate issued on September 18, Amazon filed its amended complaint on September 21, Perplexity moved to dismiss and stay discovery on October 13, and the October 30 text-only order terminated the separate motion to compel at ECF No. 127 and stated that the disputed issues had been briefed in joint statement ECF No. 132; this partial public feed was reviewed on November 1, 2026 and does not establish a disposition of the dismissal motion or complete docket coverage.

Issues addressed in the record

As stated by the appellate court (Dkt. 61.1, slip op. at 15–17) [§ 103], its access analysis was tied to the preliminary-injunction record and did not establish a new legal regime for agentic AI, decide different records or new facts, or address tort liability.