• by Wendy Davis , May 1, 2026

Free speech advocates and news organizations agree that a high-stakes battle over whether Amazon can ban artificial intelligence (AI) company Perplexity from Amazon.com will affect journalism.

But the watchdogs and online news industry disagree about a key point -- whether ousting Perplexity from Amazon will help or hinder journalists.

The Knight First Amendment Institute and other watchdogs say a win for Amazon will hinder journalists' ability to conduct research.

But Digital Content Next, which represents news companies, says in court papers filed Wednesday that a ruling for Amazon "will advance, not harm, journalism."

The dispute centers on whether Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- a 1986 anti-hacking law -- by allegedly accessing Amazon users' accounts with their consent, but in violation of Amazon's attempt to prevent such access. That law, introduced soon after the movie "WarGames" came out, has provisions prohibiting people from intentionally accessing computer systems without authorization.

The dispute dates to November, when Amazon sued Perplexity for allegedly "trespassing" into Amazon's system.

The retailer alleged that Perplexity, through the Comet browser, shopped for users and made purchases on their behalf -- even after Amazon attempted to implement technological blocks and sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter.

Two months ago, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney in the Northern District of California granted Amazon's request to prohibit Perplexity's shopping agent from continuing to access the retailer's site, and ordered the artificial intelligence company to destroy data obtained by Comet.

Chesney said in the ruling that Amazon would likely prevail with its claim that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

"Amazon has provided strong evidence that Perplexity, through its Comet browser, accesses with the Amazon user’s permission but without authorization by Amazon, the user’s password-protected account," she wrote. "Given such evidence, the Court finds Amazon has shown a likelihood of success on the merits."

Perplexity is now appealing to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted the injunction pending a decision.

Earlier this month, outside groups including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, American Civil Liberties Union and others weighed in on Perplexity's side.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Knight Institute specifically argued that Perplexity's browser appears similar to tools relied on by researchers and journalists.

For instance, the groups say, researchers rely on scraping -- meaning collecting data via automated means, often in violation of sites' policies -- to research issues such as online discrimination, misinformation, and social media platforms' advertising policies.

They add that Amazon's arguments against Perplexity could also be used against researchers who use automated digital tools for journalism and research.

"Imposing liability on Perplexity for the alleged conduct at issue here would expose journalists and researchers to civil and criminal penalties for using the digital tools of their trade," the groups wrote. "Computer crime laws should not become a means for shutting down important research in the public interest."

But the news industry organization Digital Content Next takes the opposite position, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Wednesday that the injunction against Perplexity should remain in place.

Upholding the injunction "will advance, not harm, journalism," Digital Content Next argues.

"All publishers, not just news organizations, are entitled to control access to their content," the organization argues. "Publishers should not be forced to open their 'gates' to AI agents ... that seek to exploit protected digital content and publisher data for the secondary, commercial purposes of the firm behind the AI agent."

The group adds that artificial intelligence companies are "fully capable of negotiating agreements with publishers and platforms," and that Perplexity's appeal "seeks to undo this emerging licensing market, incentivizing AI firms to employ false pretenses to obtain data instead of lawfully paying for it."

"Such a reversal would create grave risks for the future of journalism, as well as content creation more broadly," Digital Content Next says.

The 9th Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments on June 11 in Seattle.