In a victory for innovators and privacy-conscious users, the **Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals** has endorsed a common-sense technical interpretation of the **Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)**. This ruling rejects **Amazon**'s attempt to use the CFAA to shut down **Perplexity AI**'s **Comet** browser and its optional agentic AI "Assistant." **Amazon** had argued that the AI Assistant, designed for comparison shopping, violated the CFAA because **Amazon** did not "authorize" **Perplexity** to access **Amazon** users' accounts. The court, however, found **Perplexity** unlikely to be liable, concluding that users operate the tool, not **Perplexity** itself. ### The Technical and Legal Nuance As explained in an amicus brief by the **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)**, the CFAA requires unauthorized "access." The court concurred, noting that the **EFF**'s explanation "articulates the nature of the system most clearly." It affirmed that **Perplexity** itself does not access **Amazon**'s servers; rather, users of the **Comet** browser do. ### AI Intent Irrelevant for CFAA The court acknowledged that agentic AI presents novel legal issues, with "little to no existing caselaw directly dealing with how to ascribe responsibility for AI agents like the Assistant, let alone caselaw specifically dealing with agentic AI in the CFAA context." However, it ultimately deemed questions of AI "intent" irrelevant to this case. The Assistant was clearly defined as "a tool, not a person for statutory purposes," operated by users, not **Perplexity**. Even when **Perplexity** received user information about **Amazon** accounts to instruct the Assistant, the court determined this did not constitute the control required to attribute access to **Perplexity**. While **Amazon** may have other legal avenues, invoking the CFAA was deemed legally baseless and poor policy, potentially exposing users to criminal liability. ### Protecting Innovation and User Tools This decision is particularly gratifying for advocates of digital rights and innovation. The CFAA has frequently been weaponized by larger entities against smaller innovators developing helpful user tools. Organizations like the **EFF**, through their **Coders Rights Project**, often counsel clients on CFAA risks, particularly for developers creating tools that enable new ways of accessing websites. This ruling from one of the country's most influential appellate courts provides crucial backing for creators and reinforces the principle that users maintain agency over the tools they employ.