Perplexity co-founder and CEO Aravind Srinivas has publicly responded after a legal challenge from a major cloud and retail company over the startup’s new AI browser, Comet. Srinivas framed the dispute as one about user choice and industry collaboration, promising to defend the product and its users while inviting a constructive resolution.
What happened
The dispute centers on Comet, an AI-powered browser that integrates web services and generative AI features. The competing company raised legal concerns, prompting a formal challenge. Srinivas answered the challenge directly, saying the company will protect user interests and the right to choose innovative tools.
Company response and stance
Srinivas emphasized two main points: the priority of user choice and the need for cooperative relationships between platforms. He made it clear Comet’s team will defend users from actions that would restrict access or limit competition. At the same time, he called for open dialogue and technical collaboration to resolve disagreements without blocking customer options.
Key themes from the response
- User choice: Srinivas highlighted that users should be free to pick the tools that work best for them.
- Collaboration: He urged both companies to find practical, technical solutions through cooperation rather than immediate escalation.
- Commitment to defend: The company plans to protect its product and users if needed, signaling readiness for legal or regulatory steps.
What this means for users
For customers of the AI browser, the CEO’s message is reassuring: the company intends to keep Comet available and functioning while it works through the dispute. Users may see normal product updates and communication about any changes in integrations or service access.
Business and industry implications
The public exchange highlights broader tensions in the tech sector as established players grapple with emerging AI tools that change how services are accessed. The outcome could shape how platforms and AI startups negotiate access, integrations, and user data practices going forward.
Next steps
Srinivas invited the other company to pursue a “constructive partnership” and suggested technical discussions as a first step. If those talks fail, the startup has signaled it is prepared to defend its users through legal channels. Observers should expect updates as both companies clarify positions or reach cooperative agreements.
Whatever happens, the dispute underscores a growing theme in tech: balancing innovation, competition, and cooperation to keep user choice at the center of product decisions.