https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur....
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.45...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVRC_Holdings_LLC_v._Brekka
> Amazon wrote in its original complaint that Perplexity’s agents posed security risks to customer data because they “can act within protected computer systems, including private customer accounts requiring a password.”
Is Amazon arguing that all agents are dangerous, while they are simultaneously pushing agents all over the place in AWS to customers, and guiding them to literally use agents within “protected computer systems”?
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) [1] lets site owners restrict access to a “protected computer”, which is “a computer…which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States” [2].
It’s unclear if this applies to public website. But the courts seem to apply it to any password-protected content.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
The judge finds Amazon likely to succeed on the merits for this case that involves specifics in how Perplexity worked, especially for the impact on other business activities, such as meeting their existing contractual relationships with advertisers.
The last paragraph does seem to indicate a strong yes to your last questions.