A lot of companies are making a comfortable living by selling goods or services online: Amazon, DoorDash, Uber etc. A key part of the business model is that the visitors to their site are actual humans, who can be shown ads, or otherwise persuaded to upsell to some enticing extra product (“Would you like chips with that?”) and thereby disgorge a little bit of extra revenue. This is part of what’s called “building a relationship with the customer”. Which is a nice way of saying “owning the customer”. But what if the visitors to your site are AI bots, looking for deals on behalf of a human that ends up one step removed from contact with you? Then all those ads and extra persuasive messages fall on the worst kind of deaf ears -- no ears at all. The human says to the AI agent “get me a ride to the airport”, the agent goes away to the Uber and Lyft sites (or whatever else turns up), and picks the cheapest option at that moment. The human doesn’t know which company is providing the ride that turns up on their doorstep, and they won’t care. The providers of these products have become mere commodity suppliers. This thought does scare some of these online retailers. And now Amazon, just about the biggest such e-tailer out there, is suing Perplexity, a provider of just such an AI agent service. Amazon says that this is about maintaining a “positive customer experience”; but surely the form of the “customer experience” is something for the customer to choose. Amazon also says that access by AI bots is against the terms of service for its site, and that is clearly the core of its legal claim. But will such a claim hold up in court? How far can companies go in dictating exactly what form users’ accesses to their site can take? <https://www.theverge.com/podcast/823909/the-doordash-problem-ai-agents-web-amazon-perplexity-lawsuit>