9th Circuit: Amazon Perplexity Rehearing Denied, AI Scraping Injunction Vacated

• The Ninth Circuit recently rejected Amazon's request for an en banc rehearing in its case against Perplexity.
• No judge on the court requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter.
• This denial upholds an August ruling that vacated a district court injunction against Perplexity's AI assistant.
• The August ruling found Amazon unlikely to succeed on claims that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
• The injunction had previously barred Perplexity's Comet AI Assistant from accessing password-protected sections of Amazon's store.

The Ninth Circuit's decision to deny an en banc rehearing solidifies its earlier finding that Amazon is unlikely to prevail on its claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decisively rejected Amazon's petition for an en banc rehearing concerning a prior ruling that had vacated a lower court's injunction against Perplexity. This recent development means the earlier decision, which found Amazon unlikely to succeed in its legal challenge against the AI company, will stand without further review by a larger panel of judges. The court's report highlighted the unanimity of this decision, noting that not a single judge requested a vote on the motion to rehear the matter, underscoring the appellate panel's confidence in its initial judgment.

This denial solidifies the Ninth Circuit's stance on the application of federal and state computer access laws in the context of AI operations. The original injunction, issued by a district court, had specifically prohibited Perplexity from deploying its Comet AI Assistant to access password-protected sections of the Amazon store. The appellate court's refusal to reconsider its decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding AI scraping and data access.

At the heart of Amazon's legal action was the allegation that Perplexity's AI activities constituted unauthorized access to its online platform. The Ninth Circuit, in its August ruling that Amazon sought to challenge, determined that the e-commerce giant was not likely to demonstrate a violation of either the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) or the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). These statutes are central to disputes involving unauthorized access to computer systems and data.

The appellate court's earlier decision effectively overturned the district court's preliminary injunction, which had been put in place to prevent Perplexity's Comet AI Assistant from operating within Amazon's secure, password-protected environments. This finding in August set a precedent by suggesting a high bar for proving "unauthorized access" under these specific laws, particularly when applied to AI systems gathering publicly available or semi-public data, even if behind a login. The current denial of the en banc rehearing reinforces this interpretation, leaving the August ruling as the prevailing legal guidance in the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit's firm denial of the en banc rehearing in the Amazon Perplexity AI lawsuit carries substantial weight for the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence and data scraping practices. By allowing its August ruling to stand, the court has effectively strengthened the legal framework that AI developers and tech companies must navigate when their systems interact with online data. This outcome suggests a potentially higher threshold for plaintiffs to meet when alleging "unauthorized access" under the CFAA and CDAFA, especially in scenarios involving AI agents.

This development is particularly relevant for legal professionals advising on AI scraping rulings and the deployment of AI tools like the Perplexity Comet AI Assistant. The court's consistent position indicates a cautious approach to broadly interpreting "unauthorized access" in a way that could stifle AI innovation or data analysis. The 9th Circuit AI scraping ruling, now solidified by the denial of rehearing, will likely serve as a key reference point for future cases involving AI's interaction with password-protected or otherwise restricted online content, influencing how companies approach data acquisition and how courts evaluate claims of misuse.

The denial of the en banc rehearing solidifies the 9th Circuit's prior ruling, which found Amazon unlikely to succeed on CFAA and CDAFA claims against Perplexity's AI. This sets a significant precedent for lawyers advising tech companies and AI developers on the application of these statutes to AI scraping of password-protected data, indicating a potentially higher threshold for proving 'unauthorized access' in such cases.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets