Platform dominance and consumer scepticism shape the future of agentic commerce

As Amazon and Shopify restrict autonomous AI shopping, the future of agentic commerce appears controlled and limited, with consumer trust and data preservation at the forefront of industry resistance.

The vision of agentic commerce, where AI assistants autonomously browse, compare, and complete purchases on behalf of consumers, remains an alluring, yet elusive, concept in the evolving retail landscape. Imagine directing an AI with a simple request like “I need toilet paper and detergent,” and having it seamlessly handle the entire purchasing process without juggling multiple browser tabs. While this seems like the next logical step in e-commerce, the reality is considerably more complex and fraught with resistance from dominant industry players and consumer sentiment alike.

Two of the largest retail platforms, Amazon and Shopify, are at the forefront of this challenge. Despite the potential efficiencies agentic commerce promises, both companies actively restrict its full implementation. In August 2025, Amazon notably blocked access to various AI agents including ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google’s Project Mariner, pursuing legal action against Perplexity AI for allegedly circumventing security by disguising automated browsing as human activity, a move that Amazon claims degrades the shopping experience and disrupts personalization features integral to their platform. Shopify, while embracing AI-enhanced shopping, imposes strict controls, requiring that AI agents cannot complete purchases independently and restricting automated payments to Shop Pay, ensuring human oversight over transactions. These strategies underscore a shared priority: preserving their direct relationship with customers and, crucially, the invaluable behavioral data generated in the shopping process.

This data is a cornerstone of modern retail economics, as seen with Amazon’s advertising revenue, which reached $56.2 billion in 2024 and $15.7 billion in Q2 2025 alone. The primary value for these platforms lies not just in product sales but in the insights gleaned from customer behaviour, hesitations between products, repeated views, abandoned carts, fuel targeted ads, recommendations, and dynamic pricing. Full delegation to external agents poses a threat by obscuring this rich trail, reducing visibility to only the final purchase and severing critical predictive and lifetime-value modelling capabilities. Shopify’s control over payment gateways like Shop Pay serves a similar function in protecting data streams that may later underpin scalable advertising ventures. Ultimately, the battle over agentic commerce is less about incremental sales and more about safeguarding market intelligence and customer insights that underpin billion-dollar valuations.

Beyond corporate strategy, consumer attitudes present a significant barrier to widespread adoption. Surveys indicate deep skepticism: a recent study found two-thirds of U.S. shoppers would refuse AI-driven purchase delegation even if it secured better deals. Many consumers see shopping not as a chore but as discovery, entertainment, and personal expression. The selection process, particularly for apparel, decor, gifts, and books, is an essential part of the consumer experience. Moreover, trust and privacy concerns abound, with fears of inappropriate recommendations, mistakes like ignoring allergies or preferences, and anxieties about data breaches on AI platforms dampening enthusiasm for agentic shopping. Consequently, autonomous AI buying remains limited largely to repetitive, low-margin items where consumer involvement is minimal.

Advocates of agentic commerce argue that major retail platforms stand to lose incremental sales and that consumers will eventually embrace AI purchasing agents en masse. However, this argument overlooks the entrenched ecosystem models of companies like Amazon and Shopify, which have evolved into “walled gardens” that maximise value by controlling the entire user journey rather than relinquishing it to external actors. Notably, Amazon has preemptively developed its own internal agentic solutions such as Rufus and “Buy For Me,” designed to operate exclusively within its ecosystem and leverage proprietary data, highlighting a preference for internal innovation over third-party disruption.

The idea of independent agents advertising directly to consumers also presents challenges. If agents accept compensation from brands, their neutrality is compromised; if they operate under fixed budgets, they may favour discounts disproportionately, skewing behaviours artificially and lacking sustainable incentives. Furthermore, creating a competitive external agent entails replicating complex retail infrastructure, catalogues, logistics, payments, fulfilment, as well as years of behavioural data, a monumental barrier for newcomers. Recent AI missteps further reinforce consumer reluctance and highlight the risks involved in fully autonomous purchasing.

Looking ahead, agentic commerce is likely to emerge, but within the frameworks controlled by leading platforms. Gradual integration may be spurred by open protocols and regulatory pressures, as seen in industry efforts like Visa’s ‘Trusted Agent Protocol,’ developed alongside Cloudflare, Microsoft, Shopify, and Adyen, intended to differentiate legitimate AI agents from malicious bots. This initiative exemplifies how the sector is cautiously preparing for AI-assisted shopping without fully ceding control. Shopify’s own reports of a sevenfold increase in AI-driven store traffic and elevenfold rise in AI-attributed purchases show the technology’s growing footprint, yet always within controlled parameters that secure company data and customer engagement.

Ultimately, agentic commerce will deepen, not disintermediate, current retail intermediation. Consumers will entrust AI to act on their behalf, but these algorithms will remain bounded by platform rules and corporate interests. The future of shopping with AI, far from being a disruptive revolution, resembles a more closed, controlled iteration of the present, one where the convenience of intelligent assistants is balanced against the preservation of data control and carefully curated customer relationships.

📌 Reference Map:

• ^[1] (lnginnorthernbc.ca) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
• ^[2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 2
• ^[3] (Reuters) – Paragraph 8
• ^[4] (TechRadar) – Paragraph 4
• ^[5] (Shopify Community) – Background industry context
• ^[6] (Axios) – Paragraph 8
• ^[7] (TechCrunch) – Paragraph 8

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments, including Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI filed on November 4, 2025, and Visa’s ‘Trusted Agent Protocol’ announced on October 14, 2025. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/perplexity-receives-legal-threat-amazon-over-agentic-ai-shopping-tool-2025-11-04/?utm_source=openai)) The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is August 2025, indicating the narrative is fresh. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI, filed on November 4, 2025. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/perplexity-receives-legal-threat-amazon-over-agentic-ai-shopping-tool-2025-11-04/?utm_source=openai)) No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content.

Source reliability

Score:
7

Notes:
The narrative originates from a reputable organisation, Reuters, which strengthens its reliability. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/perplexity-receives-legal-threat-amazon-over-agentic-ai-shopping-tool-2025-11-04/?utm_source=openai)) However, the report is based on a press release, which may introduce bias or lack of independent verification.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative’s claims are plausible and align with recent developments in the AI and e-commerce sectors. The report lacks specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, or dates, which reduces the score and flags it as potentially synthetic. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic. The structure is focused and relevant, without excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is appropriately formal and resembles typical corporate or official language.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments in the AI and e-commerce sectors, including Amazon’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI and Visa’s ‘Trusted Agent Protocol’. While the report is based on a press release, which may introduce bias or lack of independent verification, the claims are plausible and align with recent developments. The lack of specific factual anchors and reliance on a press release warrant further scrutiny.