Ninth Circuit Rules Browser Development Does Not Violate CFAA

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that building a web browser with AI features does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
• The court rejected Amazon's lawsuit against Perplexity AI, confirming that users—not the software provider—operate AI assistant tools to access sites.
• EFF provided an amicus brief emphasizing that the CFAA regulates "unauthorized access," which is not occurring here as users retain control of their accounts.

Background of the Dispute

• Amazon sued Perplexity AI to shut down its "Comet" browser.
• The browser features an optional agentic AI "Assistant" capable of browsing websites for comparison shopping.
• Amazon alleged the tool violated the CFAA because the company did not "authorize" Perplexity to access user accounts.

Court Findings

• AI assistants are classified as tools, not individuals, and thus cannot possess "intent" for statutory purposes.
• Perplexity's receipt of account information from users did not constitute sufficient control to define access by the company itself.
• The court warned that using the CFAA in this manner could inadvertently expose individual users to potential criminal liability.

Implications

• This decision serves as a legal victory for developers building tools that allow users to access websites in new or innovative ways.
• While the court acknowledged that agentic AI presents novel legal challenges, it maintained that existing law can interpret these tools through the lens of user agency.
• The ruling limits the ability of larger companies to use the CFAA as a tool to stifle innovation by smaller "upstart" competitors.