If they haven't made any changes to the DB, that's just pointing them to the main website.

AGPL considers use of unmodified copies a "covered work". And it requires source of the calling code to also be disclosed.

(IANAL)

I read various interpretations of the AGPL and some people think it’s not the case.

MongoDB used to be AGPL and I believe most people didn’t interpret the license as everything calling the database must be AGPL, and then everything calling the thing calling the database too, that recursively until the entire world must be licensed under AGPL.

We'll see when AGPL gets tested in court. Until then I suspect legal departments will continue to treat AGPL, and even GPL (because of on prem), as a viral license which could require disclosing all their source.

No

No we won't see it tested in court? Or legal departments won't consider it a viral license?

The latter. Every large company on the planet uses Linux which is GPL.

GPL is widely used in SAAS because network users of SAAS aren't entitled to source. AGPL is different.