2 Comments
User's avatar
Cyril Simonnet's avatar

Trusting an AI to buy on your behalf is fundamentally a question of liability. You are entirely right that distrust in agentic commerce will not be equal across the board. Reputation and corporate self-interest dictate the entire market dynamic. I agree completely with this premise in my article "Everyone Is Shopping for Agentic AI Use Cases. Nobody Is Governing the Authority to Act." We are rushing to give software the autonomy to execute transactions before establishing the security frameworks required to govern those decisions. Unchecked delegation is a breach waiting to happen.

https://cyrilsimonnet.substack.com/p/everyone-is-shopping-for-agentic

Teresa Sperti's avatar

The question of liability is a big one. As more retailers roll out AI and agentic experiences, these issues will inevitably be tested legally, making governance critical.

We’re already seeing retailers use AI to generate product content to fill content gaps, often without brand oversight or approval. If AI-generated content gets claims, ingredients, warranties, compatibility or intended uses wrong, who’s responsible: the brand, the retailer, or both?

And that’s only one example. Agentic commerce has the potential to create entirely new areas of liability that retailers haven’t had to navigate before. Whether it’s inaccurate recommendations, regulatory breaches, autonomous purchasing decisions, data handling, or failures to meet shopper expectations, the legal and commercial accountability won’t always be clear. I suspect many retailers are underestimating just how quickly these questions will move from hypothetical to real issues that threaten brand reputation.