Did Perplexity Tell the Ninth Circuit the Truth About Comet for iOS?
Perplexity AI secured a unanimous appellate victory this summer, but about seven weeks later, Amazon filed a First Amended Complaint accusing Perplexity of lying about how its agent works. The Ninth Circuit had vacated Amazon’s preliminary injunction and told the lower court that agentic software acts as a tool for users, not an independent actor violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Weeks after that decision landed on August 4, Amazon returned with factual allegations suggesting Perplexity deployed a cloud browser while telling judges its servers never touched Amazon’s infrastructure.
“this request will be handled by a virtual cloud browser” (Perplexity’s own notice, FAC ¶ 6)
The timeline in the new filing places the launch of a new technical architecture squarely between the filing of appellate briefs and the court’s final ruling. If the allegations hold up, the precedent set in August rests on a factual record that contradicts operational reality. Executives and engineering leaders watching this space need to understand the mechanics behind the litigation before assuming the legal outcome is final.
The Procedural Backdrop
The case began on November 4, 2025, when Amazon sued Perplexity over the Comet AI agent. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted a preliminary injunction on March 9, 2026, halting Perplexity’s operations pending further review. Perplexity appealed immediately to the Ninth Circuit, arguing their system merely assisted users without triggering federal hacking statutes. The three-judge panel, composed of Milan D. Smith, Jr., Eric C. Tung, and John Charles Hinderaker, issued a unanimous opinion on August 4, 2026, finding that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the merits because, in the panel’s view, the user performs the access, not the software. The media coverage converged on that point, and decided the case was pretty much done.
However, the panel also relied heavily on the principle that software cannot be a person under the statute. The opinion proceeded on the understanding, drawn from Perplexity’s own representations, that Perplexity servers never directly communicated with Amazon servers during the relevant period. That understanding formed the backbone of the decision to vacate the injunction and remand the case. The panel’s reasoning is laid out in the full opinion. Amazon, however, returned to the district court on September 21, 2026, with a complaint that challenges that foundational assumption. The docket shows Perplexity now faces a motion to dismiss scheduled for November 20, 2026, meaning the case moves forward despite the appellate win.
Timeline at a Glance
| Event | Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint Filed | Nov 4, 2025 | Case initiated |
| PI Granted | Mar 9, 2026 | By Judge Chesney |
| Notice of Appeal | Mar 10, 2026 | To Ninth Circuit |
| PI Vacated | Aug 4, 2026 | Ninth Circuit opinion |
| Mandate Issued | Sep 18, 2026 | Return to district court |
| Amended Complaint | Sep 21, 2026 | Updated pleading (Doc. 122) |
| Motion to Dismiss Hearing | Nov 20, 2026 | Pending |
The full docket history is available on CourtListener,
Shifting Legal Ground
Count Three in the updated filing introduces tortious interference with contractual relations. This cause of action does not require proving unauthorized computer access under the CFAA or the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). Instead, Amazon argues Perplexity intentionally induced breaches of contracts between Amazon and its customers. The complaint cites violations of Agent Terms regarding transparency requirements, circumvention of technological barriers, and unauthorized use of account data for third-party benefit.
By moving to state tort law, Amazon sidesteps the Ninth Circuit’s strict reading of the CFAA. The logic here is straightforward. Even if Perplexity didn’t technically access computers, inducing users to violate terms of service might still create liability. The court has not yet ruled on this specific theory. The original CFAA claim required demonstrating that Perplexity exceeded authorized access, while the new tort claim requires showing intentional interference with business relationships. Both paths seek similar relief, but the burden of proof differs significantly.
What Count Three Alleges
- Induced breaches of Customer Conditions of Use through Agent Terms violations
- Circumvention of technological barriers Amazon implemented in August and December 2025
- Unauthorized use of account data benefiting third parties outside user authorization
- 185,712 sessions logged as of June 15, 2026 (per the amended complaint)
The Credibility Dispute
The most serious allegation in the updated filing concerns statements made during the appeal process. Amazon contends Perplexity told the Ninth Circuit its servers never had direct access to Amazon computers, yet the complaint alleges the opposite, pointing to the launch of Comet for iOS on March 18, 2026. This launch occurred just nine days after the district court entered the preliminary injunction. Perplexity filed its opening brief on April 1, 2026, roughly two weeks after the iOS release went live.
“However advanced the Assistant currently is, it is a tool, not a person for statutory purposes.” (Ninth Circuit Opinion)
Amazon lists specific statements from those briefs as demonstrably false. The complaint cites language where Perplexity claimed no Perplexity computer ever has direct access to an Amazon computer, then notes a reply brief on May 6, 2026 repeated similar claims without correction. On the same day it filed that reply brief, Perplexity received a letter from Amazon counsel flagging the alleged misstatements; its May 11 response allegedly left the record uncorrected. The document outlines five distinct instances of contact between the companies leading up to these filings.
This section of the complaint hinges on whether Perplexity knew about the iOS architecture at the time they briefed the court. The Ninth Circuit opinion notes they did not establish a new legal regime governing agentic AI. If the underlying facts about how Comet functions were materially misrepresented, the precedent loses weight. The filing suggests a pattern involving Cloudflare as well. Perplexity allegedly switched to an undeclared crawler after being blocked by that provider in August 2025. This behavior mirrors the alleged tactics used against Amazon, suggesting a consistent engineering approach across multiple platforms.
How the Technology Supposedly Works
Understanding the technical distinction is vital for interpreting the legal claims. The Ninth Circuit had assumed a flow where user screenshots go to Perplexity servers, which then send instructions back to the user’s device. That model relies on the local browser maintaining the session. The amended complaint describes a server-side control architecture where Perplexity servers access Amazon directly using copied session cookies.
Specific details in the filing allege the iOS version presents as Google Chrome on a Windows desktop. This User-Agent string deception reportedly occurs on every request. The complaint says Amazon security researchers identified a remote procedure call connection mechanism, and claims Perplexity employees used the agent for internal testing on password-protected pages. Data retention policies reportedly kept JPEG screenshots and HTML snapshots on Perplexity servers for up to 30 days. The filing quantifies economic damages at excess of $260,000, including 1,280 engineer hours spent addressing the issue. These technical specifics form the basis for the claim that Perplexity controlled the access rather than simply assisting a user.
The Two Architecture Models
| Model | How Access Occurs | Who “Accesses” |
|---|---|---|
| Ninth Circuit Understanding | Screenshots flow through user device | User |
| Amazon’s Allegation | Cookies copied to cloud browser | Perplexity servers |
Where the Case Goes Now
Procedurally, the ball sits with Perplexity to respond to the First Amended Complaint. Under the district court’s May 15, 2026 scheduling order, Perplexity’s response to the amended complaint is due within 21 days of the mandate that issued on September 18, 2026. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is currently set for November 20, 2026. If the dismissal fails, fact discovery closes on February 12, 2027, with expert designations following in March. Trial is scheduled for September 27, 2027.
The stakes extend beyond this single dispute. Every retail platform and every AI builder needs to know if cloud browsers require special disclosure. The Ninth Circuit explicitly disclaimed establishing new rules for agentic technology. Future cases will likely test the boundaries of that disclaimer. Amazon is betting that the iOS implementation creates enough distance from the original ruling to restart the fight.
The Bigger Picture
This litigation is a stress test for agentic commerce. Companies are building agents that act on behalf of users across complex digital environments. Courts are struggling to map old laws onto new architectures. The Amazon complaint highlights a critical friction point. Legal arguments depend on technical facts, and those facts change faster than court dockets update.
The industry will watch closely to see how the district court handles the credibility allegations. If the judge finds the technical assertions in the amended complaint credible, the path narrows for Perplexity. If the court treats the iOS architecture as distinct from the general Comet agent discussed on appeal, the precedent stands. Either way, engineering teams must document their access patterns, because assumptions about what constitutes “user access” will be scrutinized in depositions. We are living through a moment where software behavior defines liability, and the definitions remain fluid.
