The Amazon vs Perplexity dispute is a critical legal battle, with Perplexity accusing Amazon of "bullying" to protect its multi-billion dollar advertising revenue, which is threatened by AI agents that bypass sponsored products.
For years, sellers have understood that visibility on Amazon requires a heavy investment in advertising. Success is often determined by ad budgets, not just product quality.
New AI agents, like the one from Perplexity, threaten to completely upend this model. They are designed to programmatically find the best product for a user, bypassing the entire “pay-to-play” ecosystem that sellers must navigate.
This has triggered a fierce legal response from the e-commerce giant. The “Amazon vs Perplexity” lawsuit is not just a technical dispute; it’s a fight over ad revenue, with Perplexity accusing Amazon of using “bully” tactics to block a technology that threatens its bottom line.
Amazon vs Perplexity Centers on Agent Identification Debate
Marco Chávez R., Founder of Muze AI Consulting"This isn't innovation. This is building a taller wall around your garden."
The conflict between Amazon and Perplexity has escalated significantly, with Amazon sending a formal cease-and-desist letter to the AI search startup. This information was detailed in a Techcrunch article by Julie Bort and Rebecca Bellan.
The letter demands that Perplexity stop its AI-powered shopping assistant, Comet, from operating on Amazon. Amazon claims the agent violates its terms of service by failing to identify itself as a bot.
Amazon’s position is that third-party applications making purchases must operate openly. The company points to other industries, like food delivery and travel booking, where agents properly identify themselves.
As the e-commerce leader, Amazon’s stance in the Amazon vs Perplexity case is setting a clear precedent. The company is asserting two key points:
- Agents must identify themselves to the website.
- Websites retain the final decision on whether to allow those agents to participate.
Amazon Alleges Fraud and Deception in Perplexity Dispute
Amazon has officially detailed its position in the Amazon vs Perplexity dispute. In an official statement, the company outlined its arguments for demanding Perplexity’s AI agent be removed from its platform.
Amazon stated that third-party applications making purchases on behalf of customers must operate openly. The company stressed that it, as the service provider, must have the right to decide whether or not to participate.
This standard, Amazon noted, is how other industries operate, including food delivery apps and online travel agencies. The company claims Perplexity’s Comet agent has the same obligation but is not complying.
Amazon asserts that it made several requests for Perplexity to cease, explaining that the agent provided a much worse shopping and service experience for users.
The company’s legal attack against Perplexity is twofold. The Amazon vs Perplexity dispute now involves serious allegations of:
- Legal Violations – Amazon accused the startup of “computer fraud” and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
- Technical Violations – The company claims the Comet agent is a “robot,” which is explicitly banned by Amazon’s “Conditions of Use” that prohibit “robots or similar data gathering and extraction tools.”
The core of Amazon’s complaint is an allegation of intentional deception. Amazon claims it first warned Perplexity to stop its activity in November 2024.
The company alleges that in August 2025, Perplexity resumed its agentic shopping. This time, it did so by intentionally “masquerading as a Google Chrome browser” to “circumvent” Amazon’s security and bot-blocking systems.
Amazon’s public-facing argument centers on user protection. Amazon maintains that the agent worsened the shopping process and caused new privacy vulnerabilities.
Perplexity Counters Amazon, Framing ‘Bully’ Tactics as an Ad Revenue Power Play
Perplexity issued a strong public rebuttal to Amazon’s legal threats in a blog post. The startup accuses the e-commerce giant of “bullying” and attempting to block innovation to protect its advertising business.
The Amazon vs Perplexity dispute centers on a critical legal distinction. Perplexity argues its Comet assistant is not a “bot” or “scraper” but a “user agent,” which it defines as an extension of the user, similar to an employee, acting with the user’s explicit permission and credentials.
The company claims Amazon’s legal position is not reasonable. Perplexity frames the move as a “bully tactic” to scare disruptive companies and make life worse for people.
Perplexity claims Amazon’s true motive is protecting its ad revenue. The startup says Amazon is more interested in serving ads, sponsored results, and “confusing offers” than in providing a better, easier shopping experience.
This accusation is at the heart of the Amazon vs Perplexity conflict. Perplexity states an AI agent saves users time by finding the best item, which Amazon should welcome as it leads to more transactions.
Perplexity also highlighted what it sees as hypocrisy in Amazon’s actions. The startup noted that Amazon is developing its own rival shopping agent, “Buy for Me,” suggesting the legal dispute is purely commercial.
The AI company argued this proves Amazon wants to eliminate user rights to sell more ads now. It also suggests Amazon plans to partner with its own AI agents that are not designed to work solely on the user’s behalf.
Perplexity’s defense outlines a rights-based argument for the future of the web. It states that for user agents to serve their purpose, they must be:
- The agent must be indistinguishable from the human user, using their credentials and permissions.
- The agent must work for the user and no one else, especially not for corporations seeking to manipulate purchases.
- The agent must be capable of completing any task for the user, not “hamstrung” by a public company’s ad revenue goals.
The startup concluded by stating it will not be intimidated. Perplexity framed the Amazon vs Perplexity battle as a choice between empowering users and allowing corporations to continue to exploit them.
Ad Revenue and Legal Definitions at the Core of Amazon vs Perplexity
The Amazon vs Perplexity dispute is not just a technical disagreement; it is an economic conflict. The core of the issue is Perplexity’s claim about Amazon’s advertising business.
Amazon’s retail media network is a multi-billion dollar, high-margin revenue stream. This model depends entirely on human users browsing a visual interface, where they can be influenced by sponsored placements and impulse buys.
AI agents are described as being “immune” to this model. An agent given a specific goal, like “buy the cheapest 10-foot HDMI 2.1 cable,” will programmatically find the best option and bypass all sponsored ads.
Perplexity’s Comet agent, therefore, represents an existential threat to this core revenue stream. This suggests Amazon’s “computer fraud” claim may be a legal pretext to block a technology that harms its most profitable business.
A Landmark Case to Define the Legal Status of AI Agent
This Amazon vs Perplexity case is considered the first and most important legal battle to define the legal status of an AI agent. The central question is whether an agent, acting with a user’s permission and credentials, has the same legal rights to access a public website as a human.
The two companies have directly opposing stances on this key question.
- Perplexity’s Stance – The agent is an extension of the user and inherits all of that user’s rights.
- Amazon’s Stance – The agent is a “robot” and is subject to a website’s Terms of Service, which can ban it.
The court’s ruling will determine the future of the agentic web. If Amazon wins, it could create a “permission-based” web where companies can legally block all third-party agents and create walled gardens.
If Perplexity wins, the web would remain “open-by-default.” Agents would be granted the same legal status as browsers, a move that would dramatically accelerate change in e-commerce.
Why the Amazon vs Perplexity Dispute Matters for Sellers and Stakeholders
The Amazon vs Perplexity dispute is a critical battle for the new “agentic web.” It is not a minor technical squabble but a legal fight that could directly threaten Amazon’s core business model.
The true conflict centers on advertising revenue, not just terms of service violations. Amazon’s e-commerce platform functions as a massive, high-margin advertising business.
This ad model relies on influencing human users with sponsored placements, “confusing offers,” and upsells. AI agents are “immune” to this influence, instead programmatically finding the optimal product and bypassing the entire retail media ecosystem.
Perplexity’s agent is therefore an existential threat to Amazon’s ad business. This is why the startup accuses Amazon of “litigious bullying” and anti-competitive tactics.
How This Impacts Amazon Sellers
The dispute outcome could fundamentally change how sellers operate on the platform. The stakes include:
- A shift in visibility costs
The current “pay-to-play” model, reliant on heavy ad spend, would be devalued. Agents would select the best product, not the best-advertised one, leveling the playing field for sellers with superior products but smaller ad budgets.
- The rise of “Agent Engine Optimization” (AEO)
This conflict signals a shift from Search Engine Optimization (SEO) to AEO. Every seller and Amazon agency will need to optimize for perfect, structured, machine-readable data on pricing, specs, and reviews, as this becomes the “new AI shelf” that agents browse.
- Risk of a new “closed ecosystem”
Amazon is developing its own agents, “Rufus” and “Buy for Me.” This legal push may be an attempt to block rivals, allowing its own agents to favor Amazon’s private-label products or sellers who pay for placement in the new algorithm.
What Concerns Amazon Stakeholders
For investors, this legal battle is a crucial test of the company’s future profitability. Key concerns include:
- Defense of a high-margin revenue stream
The lawsuit is a public test of Amazon’s ability to protect its highly profitable retail media business from becoming obsolete by new technology.
- The “walled garden” strategy at risk
Perplexity’s agent, which Amazon accuses of “computer fraud,” is a direct attack on the company’s closed ecosystem. If the court rules an agent has the same rights as a user, it could legally dismantle Amazon’s control over its marketplace.
- Setting the rules for agentic commerce
This Amazon vs Perplexity case will set the commercial and legal precedent for a future multi-trillion-dollar economy. Amazon is fighting to ensure it, and not competitors, defines the rules and remains the “gatekeeper of commerce.”
Amir Hartman, Co-Founder at Studio CX"For enterprises, this is a reminder: AI adoption will not just be about tech. It will require legal, platform, data, and governance strategy from day one."
