Perplexity AI in Legal Hot Water: Amazon and Others Strike Back

In recent years, agentic AI has emerged as a groundbreaking technology reshaping our interaction with e‑commerce platforms. At the center of this technological evolution is Perplexity AI, whose Comet browser has sparked significant legal disputes. These cases, prominently involving companies like Amazon and Reddit, raise critical questions about the future of AI agent access in digital marketplaces.

The legal battles began in the 9th Circuit, where Amazon challenged Comet's ability to access customer accounts autonomously. Amazon argued that such actions violate user privacy and threaten its control over digital advertising, a major revenue source for the company. A court ruling temporarily blocking Comet's operations marked a critical moment in defining the boundaries of agentic commerce.¹

These disputes underscore a broader tension between innovation and regulation. While tech enthusiasts laud the potential of AI agents to enhance shopping efficiency and personalize user experience, critics emphasize the need for stringent oversight to protect against unauthorized data scraping and potential abuse as discussed here.

Moreover, the ongoing series of lawsuits involving Perplexity highlights the intricate legal landscape governing AI technologies, especially those reaching into aspects of user privacy, platform authorization, and digital advertising dynamics. As companies like Reddit also take legal measures against Perplexity, the industry watches closely to see how judicial precedents will shape future AI development and deployment strategies.⁵

The implications extend beyond legal boundaries, affecting economic and social facets of e‑commerce. If restrictions on AI agents increase, it could limit competitive opportunities and reinforce the dominance of established players like Amazon. For consumers, this may translate to higher costs and reduced access to innovative shopping tools. As the digital landscape evolves, so too must our approach to legislation and technology integration.

The conflict surrounding the Perplexity legal cases is deeply rooted in the rapidly evolving landscape of agentic AI and its implications for e‑commerce and digital rights. The core issue revolves around Perplexity's innovative use of AI technology through its Comet AI browser, which has been accused of unauthorized access to major platforms like Amazon. This situation underscores a broader clash between pioneering AI services and traditional digital commerce protocols set by long‑standing corporations like Amazon.

Perplexity AI's challenges with legal actions from Amazon, Reddit, and Dow Jones illustrate the tension between emerging AI technologies and existing cybersecurity and content access laws. Companies like Amazon argue their platform security is threatened by Perplexity's AI, emphasizing the potential risks to user data and unauthorized access. Legal disputes such as the Amazon vs. Perplexity case in the 9th Circuit highlight how AI advancements are testing the limits of current regulatory frameworks in e‑commerce contexts.

The background to this conflict is also steeped in the broader theme of intellectual property and platform sovereignty. Cases, including Reddit's lawsuit over bypassing SearchGuard and Dow Jones’s accusations regarding content usage, showcase the friction between AI's capabilities and the protected systems it engages with. These legal battles are more than just technological confrontations; they represent a significant existential dilemma about control, access, and fairness in the digital economy.

On the societal level, the Perplexity legal battles bring out discussions on consumer rights, privacy, and the future of AI integration into everyday commercial activities. There is a growing debate on whether large corporations are leveraging their power to stifle innovation under the guise of user protection, as they face competition from AI that could potentially decentralize control away from established e‑commerce giants.

Ultimately, the ongoing litigation epitomizes a pivotal moment for agentic AI, with potential implications reaching far beyond the involved parties. It raises fundamental questions about the balance between innovation and regulation, and how legal systems worldwide will adapt to the inevitable changes brought on by the increasing use of artificial intelligence.

Perplexity AI is currently embroiled in several significant legal cases that are shaping the landscape of agentic AI technology. The most discussed case is Amazon vs. Perplexity in the 9th Circuit. This lawsuit involves Perplexity's Comet browser that allegedly accessed Amazon customer accounts without authorization. Amazon claims this use of AI agents breaches security protocols, sparking debates about user consent versus platform authorization. Circuit court decisions in this matter will likely set precedents for how AI agents interact with e‑commerce platforms.²

Another high‑profile dispute involves Reddit, where Perplexity is accused of circumventing Reddit's SearchGuard feature, leading to concerns about scraping and data privacy. Reddit's victory in obtaining an injunction underscores the importance of technical barriers in safeguarding digital environments. This case, seen as mimicking issues in the Amazon lawsuit, highlights critical aspects of data security and the responsibilities of AI technology developers in respecting site‑specific restrictions, as discussed in this court ruling.

In the Southern District of New York, Dow Jones & Company has taken action against Perplexity for allegedly unauthorized content scraping. This case focuses on the complexities of copyright in the digital age and how AI tools interface with proprietary data behind paywalls. Legal experts suggest that outcomes here will influence future legal interpretations of digital content usage and the thresholds for AI compliance with copyright laws. Additional insights are found in the ongoing proceedings documented here.

The legal confrontation between Amazon and Perplexity AI in the 9th Circuit Court revolves around the alleged unauthorized access by Perplexity's Comet browser to Amazon customer accounts. Amazon asserts that Perplexity's AI‑driven software bypasses the company's security measures, thereby infringing on its terms of service. This case underscores the broader challenges faced when integrating AI technologies within established digital marketplaces. While Perplexity argues that their AI facilitates autonomous shopping experiences—aligning with future digital commerce trends—Amazon maintains that such activities compromise security and infringe on user data privacy rights. Read more about the complexities of this legal battle.

Public reactions to the Amazon vs. Perplexity lawsuit are sharply polarized. Proponents of Perplexity, including many within the AI and startup communities, view the lawsuit as an effort by Amazon to curb innovation and maintain its advertising dominance. They argue that Perplexity's use of AI represents a legitimate advancement in e‑commerce, where user‑authorized AI agents could redefine autonomous shopping. On the other hand, critics argue that Perplexity's methods resemble automated trespassing, emphasizing the importance of upholding secure transactions and privacy online. This debate highlights the tension between technological progress and regulatory frameworks necessary for maintaining e‑commerce integrity. Explore the different perspectives on this issue.

The ongoing litigation between Amazon and Perplexity AI has broader implications for the future of agentic AI and e‑commerce. From an economic perspective, a ruling in favor of Amazon could set a precedent that strengthens platform control over user data and limits the penetration of independent AI agents in the market. As companies like Amazon look to protect their ad revenue streams, the case brings to the forefront potential changes in how AI tools interact with retailer ecosystems. Socially, the case prompts a reflection on consumer trust and privacy, questioning whether user consent can override platform authorization—a debate that could shape how digital transactions are managed. Additionally, there are potential regulatory implications, with the case likely influencing future legislation on AI usage in commercial settings. Delve into the possible future outcomes.

The legal confrontation between Reddit and Perplexity highlights the intricate challenges arising from the integration of AI agents into digital platforms. Reddit's lawsuit against Perplexity centers around the alleged bypassing of Reddit's SearchGuard—a security measure intended to prevent unauthorized access and protect the integrity of the platform's data. This case underscores broader tensions in the tech industry regarding how AI interacts with existing digital infrastructures. By pursuing legal action, Reddit aims to reinforce its rights to control access to its data and maintain the security measures it has put in place.

The Reddit vs. Perplexity case sheds light on broader issues surrounding data privacy and the ethical use of AI technologies. Reddit's allegations suggest that Perplexity's AI agents circumvented security features, raising concerns about the potential misuse of AI in accessing sensitive user information without explicit consent. Such instances amplify debates about the responsibilities of AI developers in ensuring that their systems adhere to ethical standards and legal requirements. The outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for how companies safeguard their platforms against unauthorized AI intrusion, thereby influencing the future integration of AI in digital ecosystems.

Despite the legal challenges, there is a recognition that AI technologies, like those developed by Perplexity, hold immense potential to transform how users interact with digital services. However, the Reddit lawsuit underscores the need for a delicate balance between innovation and regulation. By implementing measures like SearchGuard, Reddit emphasizes the importance of maintaining control over its digital environment, thereby protecting its community and data assets from unauthorized AI activities. This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing negotiation between tech companies and digital platforms to find a sustainable path that accommodates technological advancements while ensuring data security and privacy.

The legal battle between Dow Jones & Company and Perplexity AI in the Southern District of New York underscores the intricate challenges at the intersection of media, artificial intelligence, and digital copyright. Dow Jones accuses Perplexity of unauthorized data scraping, claiming that Perplexity's AI tools accessed and extracted information from Dow Jones' proprietary content, including that behind paywalls. This confrontation reflects broader concerns over AI's role in media disruption and the protection of intellectual property in the age of automation. The lawsuit has garnered significant attention, as it raises questions about the balance between AI innovation and the rights of content creators, echoing sentiments in similar legal challenges faced by Perplexity, particularly in how AI systems should interact with paywalled or otherwise controlled digital environments.

According to reports, Perplexity's legal troubles with Dow Jones are part of a series of lawsuits that scrutinize the AI company's data handling practices. The court's denial of Perplexity's motion to dismiss the case signals a potentially lengthy legal battle, paving the way for discovery processes that could unveil detailed insights into how Perplexity's algorithms function in content acquisition. This case is pivotal not only for the parties involved but also for the AI industry at large, as it may set precedents for how AI companies must navigate existing copyright laws when developing technologies reliant on large‑scale data extraction and usage. Observers note that the outcome could influence future corporate strategies regarding AI's engagement with media content, potentially leading to more stringent regulations and the need for innovative compliance solutions.

Recent legal disputes highlight the growing tension between AI advancements and e‑commerce platform security. The case of Amazon vs. Perplexity, prominently featured in the 9th Circuit, centers around Perplexity's Comet AI technology that allegedly accessed Amazon accounts without proper authorization. This case reflects broader concerns about the balance between innovation in AI and the need for stringent security measures in e‑commerce. The ruling could establish significant precedents regarding the use of AI for autonomous shopping.²

Parallel to this, the Reddit vs. Perplexity lawsuit also illustrates the challenges of integrating AI technology within existing legal frameworks. Reddit's SearchGuard feature was reportedly bypassed by Perplexity's AI, prompting legal actions that underscore the complexities of evolving cybersecurity threats in AI applications. Such cases hint at the need for updated legal statutes to address the nuances of AI technologies employed in diverse online platforms as noted here.

In addition to legal challenges, major retailers like Target and Walmart are proactively developing tools to detect and manage AI agents on their sites. These developments are a direct response to the rise of automated shopping technologies that could potentially disrupt retailer operations. By implementing sophisticated behavioral analytics, these retailers aim to identify and mitigate unauthorized bot activities that impersonate human shoppers. This move represents a significant shift in how retailers intend to protect their e‑commerce ecosystems from potential AI overreach as detailed here.

The public reaction to the lawsuits involving Perplexity AI has been notably polarized, reflecting a broader societal debate over the integration of AI technologies in commercial environments. On one side, supporters of Perplexity AI view the company's innovative approach to autonomous agents as a necessary evolution in the digital age. These proponents argue that such technologies can democratize commerce by allowing users more control over their interactions with major platforms like Amazon. For instance, various tech enthusiasts argue that companies like Amazon are merely protecting their commercial interests under the guise of legal battles, as they perceive the deployment of AI agents as a threat to traditional revenue models, particularly in advertising. Support for Perplexity is particularly pronounced within tech circles where innovation and disruption are highly valued concepts. Discussions on platforms like Hacker News and Reddit,³ positioning Perplexity's actions as a fight against monopolistic practices.

Conversely, the criticisms of Perplexity AI are centered around privacy and security concerns. Critics argue that tools like the Comet AI browser infringe on platform sovereignty and violate laws designed to protect digital ecosystems from unauthorized access. Amazon's defenders assert that the measures taken by Perplexity could potentially lead to breaches of sensitive user data, which could have far‑reaching consequences not just for individual privacy but for the security infrastructure of the platform itself. This viewpoint is reflected in discussions on legal forums and by privacy advocates who frame Perplexity's actions as exemplary cases of digital trespassing and unauthorized data scraping.

Overall, the legal battles have sparked a broader discourse on whether corporations like Amazon have disproportionate control over the online commerce ecosystem. This polarizing issue has opened debates about the need for clearer regulations defining the boundaries of AI functionalities and user consent in the digital marketplace. Legal experts are weighing in on how this case might set precedents for future consumer rights in using autonomous technology. For startups and other players in the AI field, the implications of these lawsuits could be long‑lasting, influencing how AI technology is deployed and regulated across the industry.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of AI and e‑commerce, support for Perplexity AI's innovations remains a polarizing topic. On one hand, there is substantial endorsement from AI enthusiasts and startup communities who view the company's technologies as groundbreaking, especially in areas like agentic AI, which allows for autonomous decision‑making in online shopping. On platforms like X (formally Twitter), influential voices argue that large companies such as Amazon are more interested in stifling innovation to protect their own interests rather than addressing genuine security concerns. These supporters believe that user‑authorized AI agents like Perplexity's Comet browser should be seen as tools for empowerment rather than threats according to some reports.

Despite facing several legal challenges, Perplexity AI's work continues to attract a significant following. Communities on social platforms such as Reddit are vibrant hubs of discussion, where many perceive the ongoing lawsuits—involving major players like Amazon and Reddit—as battles between entrenched corporate interests and innovative, disruptive startups. This sentiment is echoed in forums like r/MachineLearning, where the general consensus tends to favor innovation and autonomy over restrictive practices imposed by technology giants. The debate also extends to legal experts on platforms such as LinkedIn, where opinions are divided on whether current laws adequately address the complexities introduced by AI technologies.⁵

Perplexity AI has recently faced criticism due to its involvement in several high‑profile legal disputes. These cases illuminate the contentious nature of its technology and its implications for both privacy and business ethics. In a significant case, Amazon has accused Perplexity's Comet AI browser of unauthorized access to Amazon's customer accounts. This has raised concerns about whether such AI tools are overstepping boundaries and infringing on platform rules. Critics argue that by bypassing access controls, Perplexity is engaging in deceptive practices that could undermine trust in digital commerce. According to GeekWire, a federal court ruling temporarily blocked Comet's functions on Amazon, underscoring the legal and ethical challenges faced by Perplexity AI.

The criticism of Perplexity AI extends beyond its challenges with Amazon, touching on broader debates about the use of AI in accessing paywalled content. In a notable lawsuit in New York, Dow Jones & Company has accused Perplexity of scraping paywalled content without consent. This lawsuit underscores the ongoing tension between content creators and newer AI technologies that challenge traditional content usage models. As noted in court documents, the case against Perplexity could set precedence for how AI systems interact with protected digital content, potentially affecting how similar technologies are deployed in the future.

Another angle of criticism involves Reddit, which has objected to Perplexity's methods that allegedly bypass Reddit's SearchGuard technology, designed to prevent automated scraping. This case highlights the ongoing battle between AI developers pushing the boundaries of technology and platforms that seek to protect user data from unauthorized access. The court's decision to impose an injunction against Perplexity, as reported by ALM Corp, points to a growing recognition of the need for a balanced approach that safeguards both innovation and the legitimate rights of online platforms.

The discussion surrounding Perplexity AI's involvement in various legal cases reveals a complex tapestry of opinions among stakeholders. As a foundational case unfolds—Amazon's lawsuit against Perplexity over its Comet browser's alleged unauthorized access—reactions are notably polarized. Forums and social media platforms capture the dynamic discourse, with some segments of the technology community buoyantly supporting Perplexity's disruptive potential in the realm of 'agentic AI.' For instance, advocates argue that Amazon’s legal actions may be more about protecting its e‑commerce dominance than genuine security concerns, expressing sentiments that hint at monopolistic protection masked as privacy advocacy.

Amid this backdrop, the debate spills over into broader legal and ethical concerns affecting the tech industry. Legal scholars and practitioners are keenly observing the contours of the case, noting its implications under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). LinkedIn discussions among intellectual property attorneys highlight the divide, examining whether the case sets a precedent for user consent versus platform authorization. Intriguingly, according to some reports, polls show a noteworthy split in public opinion, with a slight majority favoring Amazon’s stance.

This legal entanglement highlights the delicate balance between innovation and regulation. As Perplexity AI's suite of AI tools challenges established digital frameworks, the broader discourse reflects on the evolving notions of digital sovereignty. Discussions mushroom across tech hubs, suggesting that while agentic AI represents a beacon of advanced consumer tech, its unfettered deployment poses risks to the structural integrity of current market models. This ambivalence is mirrored in the judicial proceedings, which many perceive as a litmus test for future legal frameworks governing AI technologies.

The ramifications of the Amazon versus Perplexity lawsuit extend far beyond the immediate legal skirmish over the Comet AI agent accessing user accounts without retailer consent. This case serves as a touchstone for future regulations in the burgeoning field of agentic AI within e‑commerce. This segment of artificial intelligence, characterized by systems autonomously engaging in transactions and price comparisons, faces new compliance challenges due to the litigation outcomes. Should Amazon leverage its victory to enforce stringent platform controls, it may curtail the operational latitude of third‑party AI tools, thereby fortifying its own grip over consumer data and transactions. The ruling starkly delineates the boundary between user consent and platform authorization, creating precedent that could recalibrate the ecosystem of digital advertising and AI tool deployment standards, potentially stalling innovation in agentic commerce. Industry observers like McKinsey predict that such developments might incentivize incumbent players like Amazon, Google, and Shopify to enhance their proprietary AI agents, potentially monopolizing the sector and significantly transforming the competitive landscape by 2030.

Economically, the decision allows retailers like Amazon to hold sway over the market by limiting independent AI systems' access, potentially dwindling the growth prospects of external AI collaborators. By ensuring its advertisement revenue streams remain untouched by ad‑skipping AI solutions, Amazon safeguards its financial interests, which are fundamentally tied to its position as a leading e‑commerce platform. Consequently, this could incite an uptick in investor interest towards in‑house AI ecosystem advancements from both incumbents and up‑and‑coming e‑commerce players. However, a Forrester analysis predicts the potential contraction of the proposed $200 billion agentic AI market by nearly a quarter, should similar legal chokeholds curb third‑party market entries. Moreover, the implications on retail media networks—valued at around $100 billion—could lead to market consolations, inflating consumer costs due to dwindled competition and price matching options.

On the social frontier, the verdict propels new narratives around consumer privacy and trust, particularly with the distinct classification of user‑permitted yet unauthorized data access. Such tensions mirror broader societal concerns regarding AI's autonomous decision‑making capabilities. Surveys, like those conducted by Pew Research, already reflect public hesitation towards AI independence, signaling potential demands for stricter oversight and regulation. This scrutiny may foster an environment prioritizing transparency and user safety but possibly at the expense of dynamic progress in consumer AI interaction models. Furthermore, the discourse surrounding equity implications suggests that socio‑economic disparities in accessing optimal deals through AI interfaces could widen, especially if access becomes fragmented and smaller AI entities struggle to reach wider audiences.

Politically and regulatory speaking, the court's reliance on statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) imparts a noteworthy template for how judicial bodies might enforce platform sovereignty over AI efficiency on technological interfaces. This legal tradition might kindle legislative interests towards more stringent CFYY amendments or inspire EU‑aligned regulatory frameworks such as the AI Act, aimed at scrutinizing agentic systems' roles and rights. The political narrative crafted by these developments might accentuate the growing chasm between established tech conglomerates and emergent AI firms, inciting legislative agendas advocating for balanced competition. Worldwide, countries attentive to U.S. proceedings, like China with its rigorous AI rulebook, may feed off this pioneering legal precedent to harmonize international AI commerce policies. Expert projections, such as those by Stanford's AI Index, foresee the introduction of comprehensive federal agentic AI guidelines by the close of this decade, projecting a cautious march toward secure adaptive AI integration.

These outcomes may also influence regulatory landscapes, where the Amazon vs. Perplexity case, cited in,² could set a precedent for how agentic AI is governed. The decision to uphold such stringent controls under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act reflects a stance that could embolden future legislative measures, both in the U.S. and abroad, influencing the development and deployment of autonomous shopping technologies. As the technology evolves, so too must the regulatory frameworks that ensure fair and equitable usage across digital marketplaces.

The lawsuit against Perplexity AI, particularly regarding its Comet AI browser's ability to access Amazon customer accounts, raises pressing social implications. At the forefront of this is the issue of digital privacy and consumer autonomy. As technology continues to evolve, AI systems have begun to play a crucial role in how consumers interact with online platforms. In the case of Perplexity, the debate primarily surrounds whether an AI tool acting with user permission, but without explicit platform permission, constitutes a breach of privacy protocols. This distinction could have broader ramifications for how trust is built between consumers and digital interfaces. According to reports, the injunction against Perplexity underscores the conflict between user agency and platform control, a significant issue in the ongoing dialogue around privacy and AI.

The societal implications of this legal battle extend to questions of equity and technological access. AI tools like Comet promise to democratize shopping by enabling users to find the best deals across platforms effortlessly. However, these benefits might not be equitably distributed if such tools are systematically restricted by platform‑imposed limitations. For lower‑income communities, often relying on these tools for cost‑effective shopping, this could exacerbate existing digital divides. This case illustrates a critical point in the trajectory of consumer AI, highlighting the need for regulations that balance innovation with inclusivity, ensuring that technological advances do not inadvertently widen social inequalities.

Moreover, public perception of AI technology could shift in response to this case. With 60% of Americans already expressing concerns over AI‑driven decision‑making, the legal proceedings involving Perplexity AI may fuel a growing wariness of AI's role in personal consumer experiences. By drawing attention to the regulatory frameworks governing AI interactions with personal data, this case could spur greater demand for transparency and user control in AI development. The ongoing litigation might serve as a catalyst for public discourse on how best to integrate such technologies into daily life while safeguarding consumer rights and interests.

The political and regulatory implications of the ongoing legal battles involving Perplexity AI offer a window into the broader challenges faced by AI developers in navigating existing and emerging legal frameworks. A significant case that highlights these challenges is the lawsuit between Amazon and Perplexity, where the latter's Comet AI browser accessed Amazon's customer accounts without authorization, leading to allegations of circumvention of e‑commerce protections. This scenario illuminates the tensions between technological innovation and existing regulatory measures, particularly around issues of digital privacy and data security.

The Amazon vs. Perplexity case underscores the growing role of the ² in regulating AI activities, particularly those that involve accessing private databases without explicit authorization. As AI tools become more advanced in performing tasks autonomously, the legal frameworks governing such technologies may need updating to reflect new technological capabilities and realities. This case represents a critical moment in defining the boundaries of AI operation legality and could set a precedent for future cases involving similar technology.

Furthermore, the case has sparked debate among policymakers about the balance between innovation and regulation. While some lawmakers argue for stringent measures to prevent unauthorized data access, others see a risk of stifling innovation. This division could lead to legislative efforts aimed at defining clearer boundaries for AI operation, possibly drawing from existing frameworks like the European Union's AI Act. Globally, this case could inspire countries to harmonize their regulatory approach to AI, ensuring that advancements in AI do not occur at the expense of privacy and security.

This lawsuit also poses significant implications for antitrust concerns, as it pits AI startups like Perplexity against tech giants such as Amazon, which already have substantial influence in the market. Critics argue that decisions like blocking Perplexity's Comet tool may represent protectionism, potentially restricting competition and innovation in the AI space. In response, proponents of stringent regulation emphasize the need to safeguard consumer data and maintain fair digital marketplace practices.

Overall, the ongoing legal proceedings involving Perplexity AI are not just about this specific instance of alleged AI misuse but are a microcosm of the broader conversation around how AI technologies should be governed. As AI continues to evolve and integrate into various aspects of life and commerce, the need for nuanced legal and regulatory frameworks will become increasingly pressing.

In conclusion, the legal battles involving Perplexity AI and major industry players like Amazon and Reddit are set to significantly impact the landscape of AI‑driven commerce. The cases underscore the central issue of whether AI systems should be allowed to operate autonomously on platforms without explicit authorization, a matter that could redefine e‑commerce access rights and platform control.

The court rulings, particularly in the Amazon vs. Perplexity case, illuminate the ongoing tension between innovation in agentic AI technologies and established platforms' control over user data. The decision to block Perplexity's Comet AI from accessing Amazon accounts has been seen by some as protecting consumer security and data privacy, while others argue it stifles technological advancement and user empowerment. This case and others like it may prompt legislative scrutiny and regulatory reforms, potentially shaping global ecommerce practices and AI deployment standards.²

The future implications of these lawsuits could be far‑reaching. Economically, they might limit the growth of the agentic AI market, influencing both current and emerging AI technologies. Socially, they raise fundamental questions about consumer trust in AI and the balance of power between tech giants and startups. Politically, these cases could catalyze significant policy development around AI usage and digital commerce regulation, possibly influencing international standards around AI‑enabled tools.⁵

Ultimately, the outcomes of these legal battles might dictate the pace and nature of AI integration into everyday commerce, affecting consumers, businesses, and the digital landscape as a whole. As these cases progress, the tech industry and regulators alike will be watching closely, understanding that the precedents set here will likely influence future innovations in AI and commerce.