标签：#webbotauth

What the court actually held Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025 over its Comet browser, pleading the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. A district court granted a preliminary injunction in March 2026. The Ninth Circuit stayed it pending appeal, and in August 2026 vacated it. The reasoning is the part worth carrying away. On the record before the panel, the systems were being accessed by Amazon's own customers, signed into their own accounts, using software they had chosen. Perplexity was not the one accessing Amazon. On that basis Amazon was unlikely to prevail on a statute written about unauthorised access. It is the first federal appellate ruling on whether AI agents acting for a user may access an online platform, and the panel was careful to say it was deciding that record rather than announcing a doctrine. What it did not hold It did not say agents are welcome, and it did not say a site has lost control of its own front door. Contract claims were not what the panel found weak. Terms of service, trademark questions and state-law theories are all untouched. A different record with different facts, particularly one where the agent operates at scale rather than for one signed-in customer, could come out differently. The useful summary is narrow and worth stating without decoration: computer-misuse law is a weak instrument against software a customer chose to run on their own account. The distinction the ruling turns on Crawler User's agent Acting for Its operator One signed-in customer Scale Many sites, high volume One session at a time Authenticated Usually not As the customer Data ends up In the operator's product In front of the person who asked The ruling's reasoning Does not apply Applies Most blocking rules in the wild do not make this distinction. A blanket refusal of automated access catches a customer's own agent alongside the scraper it was aimed at, and those two are commercially o