Yazılar

Amazon Sues Perplexity Over AI Shopping Agent That Secretly Accessed Customer Accounts

/in /tarafından

Amazon has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, accusing the fast-growing startup of illegally accessing Amazon customer accounts through its automated “agentic” shopping feature. The complaint, filed Tuesday in a U.S. District Court in California, claims Perplexity’s Comet browser and AI agent disguised automated activity as human browsing to place orders on behalf of users.

The dispute marks a major flashpoint in the debate over regulating AI “agents” — autonomous digital assistants that can navigate websites, make purchases, and perform other online tasks on users’ behalf. Amazon said Perplexity’s technology posed security risks and had repeatedly ignored requests to stop unauthorized activity on its platform.

“Perplexity’s misconduct must end,” Amazon said in its filing, adding that the startup’s software “purposely disguised its automated activity” and that its actions were “no less unlawful” than a physical break-in.

Perplexity, whose AI tools have surged in popularity amid the rise of conversational assistants, previously dismissed Amazon’s complaints, calling them an attempt to stifle innovation and protect its ad-driven business model. “Bullying is when large corporations use legal threats to block innovation,” the startup said in an earlier blog post.

Amazon argued that Perplexity’s AI agent interfered with its ability to deliver a personalized shopping experience, undermining systems built over decades. The company added that third-party apps making purchases for users must act transparently and respect site policies.

Perplexity said its Comet AI assistant allows users to shop and compare products autonomously, while keeping login credentials stored locally, not on company servers. It argued that consumers have the right to choose their own AI shopping tools — a stance that could shape future legal battles over the limits of AI automation in e-commerce.

Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban Praised at UN

/in /tarafından

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promoted his government’s world-first ban on social media for teens under 16 during an event in New York, calling the move a necessary step to address the “constantly evolving” risks digital platforms pose for children.

The law, which takes effect in December, makes Australia the first country to prohibit those under 16 from creating social media accounts. Instead of blanket age verification, the government wants platforms to use artificial intelligence and behavioral data to estimate user ages.

“It isn’t foolproof, but it is a crucial step in the right direction,” Albanese said at the Protecting Children in the Digital Age event on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the measure, saying she was “inspired by Australia’s example” and that Europe would be “watching and learning” as it considers its own policies.

Australia’s center-left government introduced the law citing research linking excessive social media use among young teens to mental health issues, bullying, misinformation, and harmful body image content. The minimum age for accounts will rise from 13 to 16.

Albanese framed the law as both sensible and overdue, saying it would give teens “three more years of being shaped by real-life experience, not algorithms.”

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Most of California’s Child Social Media Law

/in /tarafından

A U.S. federal appeals court has largely upheld California’s law restricting social media platforms from offering “addictive feeds” to children without parental consent, in a ruling that could reshape how tech giants design online experiences for minors.

What the Law Does

  • Applies to: Social media companies like Google, Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter).

  • Core restriction: Makes it illegal for platforms to serve algorithmically personalized feeds to children unless parents explicitly approve.

  • Rationale: California lawmakers argue such feeds can harm children’s mental health by encouraging compulsive scrolling and social comparison.

Court’s Ruling

  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of NetChoice’s claims that the law violates the First Amendment by limiting how companies “speak” to children.

  • Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the panel, said NetChoice failed to show that unconstitutional applications of the law outweighed constitutional ones.

  • Age verification rules (taking effect in 2027) were deemed too early to challenge.

  • However, the court did block a requirement that default settings hide likes and comments from children, saying it was not the least restrictive way to protect mental health.

Industry Pushback

  • NetChoice, a trade group representing 41 major tech companies, said it was “largely disappointed” by the decision.

    • Paul Taske, its litigation co-director, argued the law “usurps the role of parents” and expands government control over lawful online speech.

  • NetChoice has also filed lawsuits against similar state-level internet restrictions across the U.S.

What’s Next

  • The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, who had previously blocked parts of the law.

  • For now, California retains one of the strongest legal frameworks in the U.S. aimed at curbing social media’s impact on children.

Broader Context

  • The ruling adds momentum to state-led efforts to regulate youth access to social media amid rising concerns over depression, anxiety, and addiction linked to digital platforms.

  • Tech firms argue these laws could fragment the internet and undermine innovation, while advocates say they are essential to protect minors in an era of algorithm-driven engagement.