The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

AI Agents and the CFAA: Amazon.Com Services v. Perplexity AI

Just a preliminary injunction stage, but an important case to follow.

Orin S. Kerr | 6.19.2026 4:23 AM

The Ninth Circuit held argument last week in a very interesting case on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the computer hacking statute, Amazon.com Services v. Perplexity AI, No. 26-1444.  The basic issue: If an Amazon user wants to use an AI agent to help make purchasing decisions on the user's behalf at Amazon, but Amazon doesn't want users to do that, has the AI company committed a federal hacking crime if Amazon tells the AI company to stay away but the AI company continues to make its services available to the Amazon customers?

Perplexity AI's main brief is here, and Amazon's main brief is here. Oral argument is below.

Having written a lot on the CFAA, I wanted to offer some brief thoughts.

First, as I argued back in 2016, in Norms of Computer Trespass, I think the correct way to interpret the statute in shared password cases is with an agency test.  If authorized User A gives his credentials to user B, so B can access A's account, B is authorized under A's authorization when—and only when—B is acting as A's agent.  From 1178-79:

This approach mirrors the analogous rule in the physical world. When access is limited by a physical lock and key, whether entry is a physical trespass law depends on whether it falls within the zone of permission granted by the owner. For example, in Douglas v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., a business owner gave an employee the key to his home so the employee could feed his pets when he was away.  The........

© Reason.com