Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter
Free Future home
A legal battle between Amazon and the artificial intelligence company Perplexity is raising important issues about the freedom to use automated tools that gather information about online platforms. This case could deter journalism and research in the public interest and threaten criminal and civil liability for the use of common browser extensions.
Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity is over an AI “agent” built into Perplexity’s browser, Comet, which can shop on Amazon’s website for the user. Because of this feature, Amazon claims that Perplexity should therefore be liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a broad and often over-used anti-hacking law that is intended to outlaw online behavior akin to breaking and entering. This fight will go before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 11 — and the consequences could impact much more than some might think. The ACLU has weighed in with a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a decision in favor of Amazon could have far-reaching negative consequences, especially for journalists and researchers who use automated tools to investigate online platforms and hold them to account. In addition to the examples we wrote about in our brief, a win for Amazon could also impose liability on both developers and users of everyday tools that we use to surf the Web.
AI agents are chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) that can also take actions (such as sending an email or buying toilet paper) on behalf of the user. Under the hood, it’s a combination of systems: there’s the LLM chatbot that acts as an interface for the user (e.g. where the user explains what email it wants sent), and there are other systems that handle actually doing the requested actions (e.g. sending the email). The LLM is responsible for translating the user prompt into a command that fits a predetermined format, which can then be executed by the other systems.
There are three main components of Comet’s AI agent that are relevant to know for this lawsuit: 1) the web browser itself (no AI needed to open and browse websites); 2) the AI agent operating as an assistant within the browser, and 3) Perplexity’s backend AI systems. (This friend-of-the-court brief from EFF explains all this in more detail.)
In essence, Amazon is arguing that an anti-hacking law should apply to the software that gathers information retrieved by the browser after a user logs into their account.
But, Amazon’s arguments aren’t specific to AI agents, or really, AI at all. What Amazon is actually describing is a digital tool that, using automation on the user’s behalf and with the user’s consent, interacts with information from Amazon’s web pages that Amazon has made available to the user. Any software that retrieves information made available to a user after they log into a website, or otherwise interacts with the website in an automated fashion, follows basically the same behavior that Amazon is targeting.
That’s why the blast radius of a potential Amazon win is so large.
Under Amazon’s theory, online platforms and the government could seek criminal and civil liability against the users and developers of any number of browsers, browser extensions, and computer applications that strive to improve a user’s experience:
- Browsers and browser extensions that facilitate research on what social media recommendation algorithms are serving users — research that helps us understand how these platforms operate and hold them accountable
- Browser extensions that allow users to block ads or sponsored posts, track prices, protect privacy, or remove social media feeds altogether — all of which platforms might want to forbid
- Browser extensions that let users write their own scripts to add functionality to web pages
- Tools that translate webpages
Many accessibility tools could also be implicated:
- Screen readers that help users with low vision or dyslexia
- Tools that adjust the appearance of web pages, such as browser extensions that enable dark mode or modify text spacing for users with visual or cognitive disabilities
- Popup blockers that may make the web safer for those with photosensitive epilepsy and decrease distractions for users with ADHD or autism
A win for Amazon would arm online platforms with a powerful weapon of federal liability to threaten research, journalism, and countless tools that people rely on to browse the internet, and give them even more control over the way we experience the online world. That’s why the ACLU has weighed in on what might look like an abstruse legal battle between tech companies.