Amazon Doesn’t Want AI Agents Buying Stuff on Their Website

When AI shopping agents collide with big tech’s bottom line: the fight that will define who controls the future of shopping.

Let’s talk about double standards.

On one hand, we have Alexa+, Amazon’s revamped AI-powered assistant they unveiled in February 2025 which uses generative AI and can handle tasks on users’ behalf like booking concert tickets, making reservations, and managing complex multi-step activities. Alexa+ harnesses Amazon Bedrock to access state-of-the-art LLMs, including Amazon’s Nova and third-party models.

On the other hand, when you ask your Comet browser or ChatGPT Atlas to buy something for you and log into Amazon’s website, you might experience what Amazon calls a “degraded experience.”

I don’t really see the difference.

But here’s where it gets interesting: Amazon threatened Perplexity and its Comet browser. They sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Perplexity stop allowing its AI agent to make purchases on Amazon, claiming the agents degrade the shopping experience and lack personalized recommendations. This is probably going to be one of the first major clashes between companies trying to make things faster versus platforms protecting their turf.

The Hypocrisy (And Maybe It’s Not)

Here’s Amazon’s position: they’re developing their own AI shopping ecosystem. Amazon’s AI assistant Rufus is projected to generate an additional $10 billion in annualized sales, with 250 million shoppers using it this year. They are also testing “Buy for Me,” an AI agent powered by Amazon’s Nova models and Anthropic’s Claude that can visit external websites and complete purchases on users’ behalf. This is literally the same thing they’re blocking Perplexity from doing.

Why does Amazon really care? Shopping agents pose a significant threat to Amazon’s lucrative advertising business. This isn’t about the user experience—it’s about protecting a massive revenue stream.

The Future We All Want (But Nobody Knows How to Build)

To be honest, I totally want to tell an AI, “Go buy the vitamins I need,” and just have it happen. In the future, we will ask our agents to buy stuff on our behalf all the time, and we’ll automate mundane tasks.

This should actually increase the amount of people shopping. But here’s the trillion-dollar question: who’s responsible for that shopping experience? Right now, it’s all on the user.

This is exactly what Reventlov is building. We’re creating infrastructure that allows AI agents to participate in the economy legally, transparently, and responsibly, with proper governance, accountability, and human oversight. Because blocking AI agents isn’t the answer; building the right frameworks is.

Who’s Going to Win?

Perplexity called Amazon’s move “bullying” and “a broader threat to user choice and the future of AI assistants.” Their spokesperson put it perfectly: “What if stores said you can only hire a personal shopper who works for the store? That’s not a personal shopper, it’s a sales associate.”

He’s got a point. But let’s not pretend this is a simple David vs. Goliath situation. Amazon has legitimate concerns about agent quality, liability, and yes, their business model. And Perplexity’s agents apparently aren’t perfect yet anyway.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said they are “having conversations” and may ultimately partner with third-party AI agents. Translation: “We’ll allow this... once we figure out how to control and monetize it.”

Amazon, I am disappointed. You built your empire on customer obsession and selection. Now you’re blocking innovation while building the exact same technology yourself?

This is good marketing for Perplexity. But ultimately, this is about something bigger: who controls the future of commerce? The platforms that host it, or the agents that navigate it?

We’ll definitely follow this developing story to see how it all ultimately ends up. But I know one thing for sure: AI agents are coming.