A battle is brewing between two tech giants, Amazon and Perplexity, over the use of AI shopping bots. Amazon has taken a strong stance, demanding that Perplexity's Comet browser stop making automated purchases on behalf of its users. This has sparked a heated debate, with both companies refusing to back down.
Comet, along with other browsers like OpenAI's Atlas, utilizes large language models to automate web browsing and online purchases. Amazon argues that third-party apps should seek permission before enabling such capabilities, ensuring a positive customer experience. They claim that Perplexity's Comet has been causing a degraded shopping and customer service experience, and has been trying to avoid detection on Amazon's platform.
But here's where it gets controversial... Amazon's concerns seem to extend beyond just the user experience. They worry that Comet's AI agent might purchase products outside of their personalized recommendations. This raises questions about control and data ownership.
Amazon could potentially share its personalization data with Perplexity, but this would likely involve financial negotiations. Alternatively, Amazon may prefer to focus on its own native AI agent, Rufus, and protect its data.
Coincidentally, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos invested in Perplexity last year, adding an interesting twist to the narrative. Perplexity, however, sees Amazon's demands as bullying and a threat to internet users' freedom. They argue that software should be seen as a tool and an assistant, and users should have the right to choose their representative technologies.
The legal analysis provided by Perplexity raises more questions than it answers. It's a complex issue, and even legal experts are divided. Perplexity claims that AI agents are distinct from crawlers and bots, but fails to clarify how.
And this is the part most people miss... The dispute highlights the blurred lines between web browsing, scraping, and agentic AI access. Legal experts like Eric Goldman from Santa Clara University believe that distinguishing between these actions will be a major challenge for the law.
Goldman suggests that both Amazon and Perplexity may need to compromise and find a middle ground. He draws parallels to carriage contract battles in the past, where both sides had to endure losses before realizing the benefits of collaboration.
So, will Amazon and Perplexity find a way to work together, or will this dispute escalate further? The outcome could have significant implications for the future of AI-assisted shopping and the legal landscape surrounding it. What do you think? Should Amazon have the right to control how users interact with its platform, or is Perplexity's stance on user freedom more compelling? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
