[caption id="attachment_522602" align="alignleft" width="164"]
Mark Bartholomew[/caption]
Americans spend a remarkable amount of time shopping, but the way we shop is shifting dramatically, as major platforms and retailers are racing to automate commercial decision-making.
Artificial intelligence agents can already search for products, recommend options and even complete purchases on a consumer’s behalf. Yet many shoppers remain uneasy about handing over control.
As scholars studying the intersection of law and technology, we have watched AI-assisted commerce expand rapidly. Without updated legal measures, this shift toward automated commerce could quietly erode the economic, psychological and social benefits that people receive from shopping on their own terms.
[caption id="attachment_522603" align="alignleft" width="152"]
Samuel Becher[/caption]
Part of shoppers’ hesitation is about privacy. Many are unwilling to share sensitive personal or financial information with AI platforms. But more profoundly, people want to feel in control. When users can’t understand the reasoning behind AI-driven product recommendations, their trust and satisfaction decline.
Shoppers are also reluctant to give away their autonomy. In one study involving people booking travel plans, participants deliberately chose trip options that were misaligned with their stated preferences once they were told their choices could be predicted – a way of reasserting independence.
Other experiments confirm that the more customers perceive their shopping choices being taken away from them, the more reluctant they are to accept AI purchasing assistance.
Although the technology is expected to get better, there have been some well-publicized missteps reported in financial and tech media.
Consumers have good reason to be cautious. AI agents aren’t just designed to assist; they’re designed to influence. Research shows that these systems can shape preferences, steer choices, increase spending and even reduce the likelihood that consumers return products.
And companies are hyping these capabilities. The business platform Salesforce promotes AI agents that can “effortlessly upsell,” while payments giant Mastercard reports that its AI assistant, Shopping Muse, generates 15% to 20% higher conversion rates than traditional search – that is, pushing shoppers from browsing to buying.
For companies, the appeal is obvious. AI assistants are being promoted as the future of retail, while technologists are calling on companies to prepare brands for the era of agentic AI shopping.
The real concern is not that these systems might fail, but that they may succeed too well.
AI shopping agents do offer considerable benefits.
For example, they can scan numerous products in seconds, compare prices across sellers, track discounts over time, sift through thousands of product reviews, and tailor recommendations to the user’s preferences and needs.
AI shopping agents do carry some overlooked emotional risks, such as squashing the joy of anticipation, which connects to another value: a sense of personal and ethical authorship. Shopping decisions allow people to exercise choice and express judgment. The brands and products we choose help shape who we are.
Transparency has emerged as a central concern. Past experience with recommendation engines shows that undisclosed conflicts of interest are a real risk. U.S. lawmakers are considering bills to require companies to reveal how their AI models were trained.
So far, consumers seem to want to choose their own level of engagement – a signal that shopping, for many people, is more than just the efficient satisfaction of preferences. Perhaps the least-settled, yet most crucial question is whether AI shopping tools will be regulated to serve users’ interests and human flourishing – or optimized, as so many digital tools before them, primarily for corporate profit.
Mark Bartholomew is a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law. Samuel Becher is a law professor at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Distributed by The Associated Press and The Conversation.
