Amazon amends Perplexity suit over Comet AI shopping agent

Amazon filed a first amended complaint against Perplexity in federal court in Northern California, alleging the Comet shopping agent on iPhone copied Amazon login cookies onto Perplexity’s cloud and then browsed Amazon from Perplexity’s own servers.

SAFETY desk — the same day Amazon blocked Meta’s Muse from shopping, Amazon refiled against Perplexity’s Comet agent with new allegations that login cookies were copied to the cloud, sharpening the fight over who controls shopping software that acts for the customer.

The caption lists three claims. First, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That is the federal law against getting into a computer without permission. People shorten it to CFAA. Second, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California’s own computer-access law. Third, tortious interference with contract. That is a claim that someone intentionally got in the way of a contract. Amazon says the contract is its Conditions of Use — the store rules customers agree to. File those three claims as the complaint’s caption. This desk is not saying a judge has agreed with them.

What Amazon says Comet is. Comet is Perplexity’s browser with an AI agent inside it. An AI agent, here, is software that can take a series of steps — browse, click, buy — instead of only answering a question. Amazon alleges the agent is under Perplexity’s control. Perplexity’s servers direct it. It sends what it sees inside password-protected Amazon accounts back to Perplexity. Perplexity decides the next click, can stop it mid-task, and can change its behavior from those servers. File that control picture as the complaint’s, in the introduction, including paragraphs 4 and 5. This desk did not watch a Comet session.

Amazon alleges Comet does not say it is an agent. The complaint says Perplexity set the software to send the same user-agent string as Google Chrome, a separate browser owned by Google. A user-agent string is the short label a browser sends so a website knows what software is visiting. Amazon says that makes Comet look like a person shopping in Chrome. On the iPhone version, Amazon alleges the requests still presented the user-agent string of Chrome on a Windows desktop, even though they came from a Perplexity server acting for an iPhone user. File that disguise as the complaint’s, including paragraph 9 and paragraph 66. This desk did not capture a request header.

The new iPhone allegation is the cloud cookie. Amazon alleges that Comet for iOS — the version for Apple’s phone operating system, which the complaint says launched on 18 Mar 2026 — does not browse Amazon from the phone. When a user turns on agent mode, Comet copies the user’s Amazon authentication cookie and session data to Perplexity’s cloud servers. An authentication cookie is a small file that tells Amazon the customer is already signed in, so whoever holds it is treated as that customer without typing the password again. Those servers host a virtual browser, a browser running on Perplexity’s machines. They request pages directly from Amazon, get the replies directly, and stream screenshots back to the phone. Amazon alleges no user device touches Amazon’s servers, and that its engineers saw this from shortly after the 18 Mar 2026 launch until at least 11 May 2026. The complaint quotes a notice Comet shows: “This request will be handled by a virtual cloud browser.” File that architecture as Amazon’s allegation in paragraphs 6 and 66. This desk did not inspect Perplexity’s servers.

Amazon alleges a clash with what Perplexity told the appeals court while that was happening. The Ninth Circuit is the federal appeals court that covers California. The complaint says Perplexity told that court, in briefs filed 1 Apr 2026 and 6 May 2026, that “no Perplexity computer ever has direct access to an Amazon computer.” It quotes Perplexity’s 1 Apr opening brief: “It is undisputed that, in the course of a user’s use of the Assistant on Amazon.com, no Perplexity computer ever has direct access to an Amazon computer.” Amazon alleges those statements were false when made, because Comet for iOS was already connecting a Perplexity computer directly to an Amazon computer. File the quote and the false-when-made line as Amazon’s allegation, paragraphs 6 and 67, citing Perplexity’s opening brief. The complaint also says that on 11 May 2026 Perplexity’s counsel wrote that, “as a measure of good-faith,” Perplexity had temporarily disabled the assistant feature on Amazon.com in Comet for iOS, without promising the practice would not resume, and without correcting the record at the Ninth Circuit. File that letter line as the complaint’s account of Perplexity’s own words, paragraph 68. This desk did not read a new appeals ruling that decided the point. An allegation is not a finding.

The path that led here is on the CourtListener docket, not in a news recap. The original complaint was filed 4 Nov 2025. On 9 Mar 2026 Judge Chesney signed an order granting Amazon’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is a temporary order meant to pause disputed conduct while the case goes on. Perplexity appealed. On 4 Aug 2026 a Ninth Circuit memorandum said to vacate that preliminary injunction and send the case back. Vacate means the appeals court wiped the temporary order out. The mandate — the formal close of that appeal — is docketed 18 Sep 2026. On 11 Sep 2026 Perplexity filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On 21 Sep 2026 Amazon filed this amended complaint. File those dates as the docket’s.

Do not invent a new injunction today. None is on the docket as of this filing. The 9 Mar order was later vacated. Do not invent that Meta’s Muse agent is a party to this case. Muse is a different Amazon fight, already filed on this desk. Do not treat social-media commentary as a fact. Do not say a judge agreed that cookies were copied. The amended complaint is Amazon’s pleading. Perplexity’s answer to this amended complaint is not on the docket yet.

Plain English for the rest of the card: amended complaint = a revised lawsuit that replaces the original. CFAA = the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal computer-access law. tortious interference = a claim that someone intentionally disrupted a contract. Conditions of Use = Amazon’s posted store rules. AI agent = software that can take steps for you, not only chat. user-agent string = the label a browser sends so a site knows what software is visiting. authentication cookie = a small file that says you are already signed in. virtual browser = a browser running on a company’s servers, not on the phone. preliminary injunction = a temporary court order while the case continues. Ninth Circuit = the federal appeals court for California. vacate = the appeals court erased that temporary order. This filing is Amazon’s 21 Sep amended complaint. It is not a new court order and not the Muse block.

PRIMARY here: CourtListener’s docket for Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-09514, and the first amended complaint at ECF 122, filed 21 Sep 2026 — Tier A PRIMARY, the court’s own record. The three claims, the server-control picture, the Chrome user-agent allegation, the Comet for iOS launch date, the cookie-to-cloud and virtual-browser allegation, the 18 Mar through at least 11 May window, the Ninth Circuit quote, the false-when-made allegation, and the 11 May temporary-disable letter are the complaint’s. The 4 Nov 2025 original complaint, the 9 Mar 2026 preliminary-injunction order, the 4 Aug 2026 vacate-and-remand memorandum, the 18 Sep 2026 mandate, the 11 Sep 2026 motion to dismiss, and the 21 Sep 2026 amended-complaint entry are the docket’s. NOT claimed: a new injunction today, that a judge has found the cookie allegation true, that Meta Muse is a party, that this desk watched Comet or inspected Perplexity’s servers, a stock tip, or investment advice. Distinct from the already-filed amazon-blocks-meta-muse and un-ai-panel-agents.