![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/40d4cc3b0cb6dab63bf431e4a4c42cdc40-home-screentime-061125.rvertical.w570.png\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Amazon\n <\/p>\n
Right now, if you want, you can download a web browser called Comet, made by AI-search company Perplexity<\/a>, and tell it to shop for you. You might type, for example, \u201cBuy me [a specific earbud] on Amazon,\u201d after which it will open a tab, navigate to Amazon.com, enter your search in the box, and attempt to find and click the buttons necessary to add it to your cart. (A browser from OpenAI<\/a>, Atlas, will do the same thing, as will a few others.) Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn\u2019t, and it\u2019s not clear why many people would want to use such a feature now, in its current state. But it\u2019s a pretty good demonstration of new AI capabilities as well as a statement of intent: AI companies, using \u201cagents,\u201d want to try to do more things on behalf of their users \u2014\u00a0research, shopping, work \u2014 and see the browser as a way to get there.<\/p>\n It\u2019s interesting to watch a self-clicking browser work, but software like Comet and Atlas<\/a> \u2014\u00a0along with other less showy AI agents \u2014 also poses an obvious question<\/a>: What about all that stuff that\u2019s getting clicked on? AI companies are suggesting that their browsers will soon be able to interact with websites on your behalf. Won\u2019t the people and companies that run those websites, which were designed for use and patronage by humans, have issues with the automation of their visitors, customers, clients, or employees?<\/p>\n This week, Amazon<\/a> answered clearly in the affirmative<\/a>, in the form of a lawsuit<\/a> against Perplexity. The language is spicy:<\/p>\n Amazon brings this action to stop Perplexity AI, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cPerplexity\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d) persistent, covert, and unauthorized access into Amazon\u2019s protected computer systems in violation of federal and California computer fraud and abuse statutes. This case is not about stifling innovation; it is about unauthorized access and trespass. It is about a company that, after repeated notice, chose to disguise an automated \u201cagentic\u201d browser as a human user, to evade Amazon\u2019s technological barriers, and to access private customer accounts without Amazon\u2019s permission.<\/p>\n Fraud! Abuse! Trespass! Evasion! This is a threatening lawsuit \u2014\u00a0it later refers to Perplexity as an \u201cintruder\u201d \u2014 but it\u2019s also a useful window into Amazon\u2019s thinking on AI and where its business fits into a theoretical world where more people do more things with chatbots and agents. It might not be right to say the company is worried, exactly. But it\u2019s certainly clear about what it doesn\u2019t want to happen, which happens to be precisely what some AI companies clearly want<\/a>.<\/p>\n Photo: Amazon\n <\/p>\n \u201cAI that can do a bunch of stuff for you\u201d is one of the outcomes implied and demanded by the AI industry\u2019s massive valuations and infrastructure investment, alongside (and connected to) \u201cAI that can replace workers,\u201d \u201cAI that can do science,\u201d and, perhaps most imminently and realistically, \u201cAI that can command a lot of your attention<\/a>.\u201d Apps like Comet and OpenAI Atlas see the browser, where people spend a lot of time and do a lot of stuff, as a sort of mega-loophole: not just a shortcut to testing out their models on real-world tasks, but also a way to get fairly complete access to users\u2019 digital lives without asking them for all their passwords or working directly with other companies (Comet\u2019s Amazon trick works because users\u2019 browsers are probably already logged into Amazon).<\/p>\n It\u2019s easy to see why Amazon might not be thrilled about another company building a bot that can navigate its site and automate the buying process. In a narrow competitive sense, it has a new AI interface of its own, the chatbot Rufus, which Amazon customers can use<\/a> instead of search. More generally, Amazon isn\u2019t interested in letting a third party take over the experience of using Amazon, which is important to the company in a lot of different ways: It defines customers\u2019 relationship to and perception of the company; it gives them the power to control and direct the attention of users and sellers; it has allowed them to build an advertising business that, while making the site generally more annoying to use<\/a>, also makes the company a lot of money.<\/p>\n Most broadly, AI companies are hoping to end up in a situation where their products are the default interface for all sorts of things, and browser agents represent a small but aggressive move in that direction. A world where all purchases flow entirely through another company\u2019s interface, chatbot or otherwise, is something that Amazon would prefer to avoid, or at least have a say in, which is perhaps why the company\u2019s lawyers are talking about Perplexity as if it\u2019s built an automated ticket-scalping app, a sneaker-sniping bot, a data scraper, a data-exfiltration tool, or rip-off interface for its product catalogue. Earlier this week, Perplexity argued<\/a> on its site:<\/p>\n Amazon wants to block you from using your own AI assistant to shop on their platform \u2026\u00a0Amazon should love this. Easier shopping means more transactions and happier customers. But Amazon doesn\u2019t care. They\u2019re more interested in serving you ads, sponsored results, and influencing your purchasing decisions with upsells and confusing offers.<\/p>\n Suggesting that \u201cAmazon should love this\u201d and then describing the ways that it might cause them to make less money is sort of funny, but between the lawsuit and Perplexity\u2019s response we can get a pretty clear sense of what\u2019s going on here: an attempt by Amazon to stop a marginal player from setting a precedent it doesn\u2019t want, and a clear signal to bigger ones \u2014\u00a0OpenAI, Google, and other firms Amazon already competes and partners with \u2014\u00a0that, if they want their tools to touch Amazon, they\u2019ll have to do it on Amazon\u2019s terms.<\/p>\n This is a sort of conflict we can expect to see a lot of, and soon. As AI companies (with the consent of their customers) unilaterally send agentic tools out onto the web, everyone else is going to have to figure out how to respond. Do they just let it happen? Encourage it? Build their own? Do they see traffic from agents as a sign that they need to partner with AI firms, or maybe that they should shut them out entirely? How this resolves may depend less on what these models are capable of, and what outside services want, than on emerging user habits; if enough chatbot users get used to shopping inside a chatlike interface, away from e-commerce platforms and search engines, then companies like Amazon might have to accommodate a new reality. For now, though, they\u2019re eager to keep control.<\/p>\n Sign Up for John Herrman column alerts<\/p>\n Get an email alert as soon as a new article publishes.<\/p>\n Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/75a3bee37b7e1abc8337ef808d0a7ffd39-screentime-0906.rvertical.w570.png\")
<\/p>\n