On August 4, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction against Perplexity and remanded; the underlying litigation continues.

If you're building an AI agent that browses, compares, or buys on third-party platforms for users, don't read this as a green light. It isn't one. On the current record, the court held that Amazon was unlikely to show Perplexity itself 'accessed' Amazon's computers under the CFAA or CDAFA, and stressed that it was not creating a general legal regime for agentic AI. That's a long way from "AI agents may freely enter any platform."

Here's what I'd actually watch, having spent years writing code and building my own AI systems before practising cross-border law.

Terms of service may affect authorization and contract risk, but whether they bind the toolmaker depends on assent, account relationships, the product architecture, and governing law. Breach can mean blocked access, unfair-competition claims, or in some jurisdictions computer-intrusion exposure.

Technical evasion or concealing automated identity may increase contract, computer-access, or unfair-competition risk, depending on the facts and governing law.

A platform may sue the toolmaker, as Amazon did here, but attribution is fact-specific. On this record, the Ninth Circuit treated the user—not Perplexity—as the accessor for CFAA/CDAFA purposes.

And no single ruling travels the globe. What's grey in the US may be a clear breach in the EU or across Latin America. Design your product to survive one simple question: on what basis does your bot get in?

Cross-border AI product touching third-party platforms? Send me the platforms it hits and how, and I'll map the risk with you.

#CrossBorderLaw #AIcompliance #AgenticAI #ChinaLaw #TechLaw

———
Mike Wu, China-licensed Attorney · Cross-border practice
4 languages (CN/EN/ES/JA)
Site: wzklaw.com/contact.php?source=linkedin · Book consultation: wzklaw.com/contact.php?source=linkedin