A Ninth Circuit ruling in Amazon vs. Perplexity established a key legal principle for agentic AI: the entity legally "accessing" a website is the user who deploys the agent, not the company that created it. This places liability on the end-user and has massive implications for AI-driven e-commerce and web interaction.

Rubrik's CPO asserts that vendors are blamed for—and are ultimately responsible for—customer errors. The vendor's duty is to build agents with guardrails that make correct choices obvious and prevent mistakes, shifting the accountability model for enterprise software.

When an AI agent errs in a medical or financial context, it is legally unclear who is liable: the AI lab, the deploying company, or the end-user. This novel legal problem, which challenges a century of precedent, creates significant friction and will slow agent adoption in regulated industries.

Unlike scripted bots, agentic AI can hallucinate information, effectively creating new business policies (like a refund scheme) or causing compliance breaches (like divulging PII). This risk extends far beyond customer satisfaction and into legal and financial jeopardy.

The risk of AI unreliability in law is not confined to inexperienced users. Top-tier law firms are also being caught submitting court filings with AI-generated "hallucinations" and fabricated cases. This has resulted in firms being forced to apologize and lawyers on both sides of a case being fined, highlighting a systemic issue.

Early enterprise AI chatbot implementations are often poorly configured, allowing them to engage in high-risk conversations like giving legal and medical advice. This oversight, born from companies not anticipating unusual user queries, exposes them to significant unforeseen liability.

Insurers like AIG are seeking to exclude liabilities from AI use, such as deepfake scams or chatbot errors, from standard corporate policies. This forces businesses to either purchase expensive, capped add-ons or assume a significant new category of uninsurable risk.

Lawyer John Quinn predicts that existing legal frameworks will be adapted for AI. When an AI agent makes a contractual error, concepts like "apparent authority" (did the agent seem authorized?) and "mistake" (was the error obvious to the counterparty?) will determine liability, rather than creating entirely new laws.

Amazon is suing Perplexity because its AI agent can autonomously log into user accounts and make purchases. This isn't just a legal spat over terms of service; it's the first major corporate conflict over AI agent-driven commerce, foreshadowing a future where brands must contend with non-human customers.