Key Points
- Amazon sued Perplexity, alleging its Comet AI browser violates the retailer’s terms of service.
- The dispute centers on the “DoorDash problem,” where AI agents could bypass platform revenue streams.
- Perplexity defends its approach as a user‑agent right and calls Amazon’s action bullying.
- Executives from Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Zocdoc and TaskRabbit offered mixed reactions to AI agents.
- Amazon’s ad business and Prime subscriptions could be threatened if agents skip sponsored listings.
- The case may set a legal precedent for how AI browsers interact with e‑commerce sites.
Background: AI agents and the “DoorDash problem”
Tech leaders have been warning that AI‑driven agents could sidestep the customer‑relationship structures that underpin services such as food delivery, ridesharing and online shopping. The phenomenon, dubbed the “DoorDash problem,” describes a scenario where an AI interface orders a sandwich, books a ride or makes a purchase without the user ever opening the service’s app, potentially stripping the platform of promotional, loyalty and advertising revenue.
Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity
Amazon filed a legal complaint accusing Perplexity of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The complaint claims Perplexity’s Comet browser, which integrates an AI shopping agent, deliberately masks its activity as a human Chrome user and continues to operate after Amazon asked the company to stop. Amazon argues that third‑party applications that make purchases on its site must respect the retailer’s decisions and that the Comet agent degrades the shopping and customer‑service experience.
Perplexity’s defense
Perplexity counters that its AI agents act as “user agents,” performing the same actions a human would when a user requests a purchase. In a blog post, the company characterized Amazon’s legal action as bullying and asserted that users should have the right to let their AI assistants browse the web on their behalf. Perplexity maintains that its approach does not require special permission and frames the dispute as a fight for an open internet.
Industry reactions
Executives from several platform companies offered varied perspectives. Lyft’s CEO emphasized the importance of brand preference and warned against unbranded, random rides. DoorDash’s communications team highlighted the value of end‑to‑end experiences, including reviews and support, asserting that any channel must replicate these to serve customers fully. Uber’s CEO discussed a flexible stance on working with AI agents, noting that economics would determine any fees. CEOs of Zocdoc and TaskRabbit expressed confidence in their deep operational moats, suggesting that AI agents would not easily replace their services.
Implications for Amazon’s business model
Amazon’s advertising arm, which generated $17.7 billion in the most recent quarter and is projected to exceed $60 billion in the near future, could be undermined if AI agents bypass sponsored placements. Likewise, the Prime subscription model, which drives repeat purchases, might lose relevance if agents automatically source the lowest‑price items across the web. Amazon has been developing its own AI shopping tools, such as the Rufus assistant and a “Buy For Me” bot, to retain control over the emerging agentic commerce landscape.
Potential outcomes
The lawsuit could set a precedent for how platforms enforce terms of service against AI‑driven browsing tools. A ruling in Amazon’s favor might compel AI browsers to obtain explicit permission before accessing commerce sites, while a decision supporting Perplexity could reinforce the notion of user‑agent rights. Meanwhile, the broader tech community continues to debate how to balance innovation, business economics and user experience in an increasingly agent‑first web.
Source: theverge.com