Amazon Judge Blocks Perplexity’s AI Shopping Agent on Platform, Halting Sales Access

Amazon’s courtroom victory marks the first time a major retailer has secured a judicial injunction specifically against an AI‑driven purchasing tool. Judge Maxine Chesney, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, found that Perplexity AI’s browser‑based agent, Comet, was “accessing users’ password‑protected Amazon accounts with permission but without Amazon’s authorization,” and ordered the startup to cease all checkout activity on the platform and to delete any Amazon data it had collected (The‑Decoder). The ruling, issued on March 10, 2026, gives Perplexity a one‑week window to appeal, but in the meantime the AI assistant is barred from completing any transaction on Amazon’s site.

The legal dispute traces back to a November 2025 lawsuit filed by Amazon, which accused Perplexity of fraud for failing to disclose when Comet was acting on a user’s behalf and for ignoring repeated cease‑and‑desist demands (The‑Decoder). According to Bloomberg, Amazon’s complaint centered on the fact that the AI agent could silently log into a shopper’s account, add items to the cart, and finalize purchases without the retailer’s consent, effectively bypassing Amazon’s security and fraud‑prevention mechanisms. Reuters corroborated that the injunction specifically blocks “access for Perplexity’s AI shopping ‘agent’” and mandates the removal of any stored Amazon credentials (Reuters).

Industry observers see the case as a bellwether for how courts will treat autonomous software that performs complex, financially binding actions. The Verge highlighted the broader regulatory question: as AI agents become capable of “complex tasks like online shopping,” judges will need to balance consumer convenience against platform security and liability (The Verge). While the decision does not set a formal precedent, it signals that companies can seek injunctive relief when an AI tool operates in a gray area between user‑initiated activity and automated fraud.

Amazon’s aggressive stance may also be linked to its strategic investments in the broader AI ecosystem. The Decoder noted that Amazon recently became a major investor in OpenAI, whose own chat products are rumored to be working toward direct checkout capabilities, though “OpenAI reportedly hasn’t cracked direct checkout in its chat interface” (The‑Decoder). By curbing Perplexity’s foothold, Amazon could be positioning itself to control the next generation of AI‑enabled commerce, ensuring that any future checkout integration aligns with its own terms and security standards.

For Perplexity, the injunction is a significant operational setback. The startup’s Comet agent was marketed as a “browser AI” that could streamline shopping by handling searches, price comparisons, and checkout in a single conversational flow. With the court order, the company must now strip the agent of any Amazon‑related functionality and purge the data it has already harvested, a task that Bloomberg describes as “mandatory” under the judge’s ruling. The one‑week appeal period leaves little room for a technical workaround, and analysts note that the loss of Amazon as a sales channel could hamper Perplexity’s growth plans, given the retailer’s dominant market share.

The case underscores a nascent legal frontier where AI, commerce, and consumer protection intersect. As more startups roll out autonomous agents capable of completing transactions, regulators and courts will likely see an uptick in similar disputes. For now, Amazon’s victory serves as a cautionary tale: without explicit platform permission, even well‑intentioned AI tools can run afoul of the law, and the judiciary is prepared to enforce those boundaries.