- within Consumer Protection topic(s)
- in United States
- within Consumer Protection, Tax and Finance and Banking topic(s)
Recent developments in agentic commerce have raised important questions for both UK consumers and e‑commerce platforms. A particular area of focus is the use of AI assistants capable of browsing, comparing prices, and, in certain instances, automating checkout processes. Major platforms, including Amazon, have sought to contractually restrict these tools through blanket clauses in their Terms of Use and by initiating litigation against providers of AI-powered web browsers/assistants, as highlighted in the recently announced litigation initiated by Amazon against Perplexity.
The commercial rationale for such contractual prohibitions is understandable. E‑commerce platforms have a legitimate interest in preventing abuse, automated scraping, or system disruption, particularly because they are exposed to potentialrisks from third-party providers of AI shopping agents with which they have no contractual relationship and, as a result, cannot rely on indemnities or other contractual protections to mitigate such risks. However, these restrictions also raise potential consumer rights considerations which a court should rightly consider in the context of litigation. At the time of this update, there have been no reported instances of e-commerce customers formally challenging these contractual limitations. Nonetheless, the issue underscores the broader tension between platform control and the legitimate expectations of consumers in a market increasingly shaped by AI‑driven tools.
Automated Access Restriction in Context
To illustrate the type of clause at issue, e-commerce platforms often prohibit automated access by providing as follows:
"You may not extract and/or re‑utilise parts of the content of our Services without our express written consent. In particular, you may not utilise any data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools to extract (whether once or many times) for re‑utilisation any substantial parts of the content of any our Services, without our express written consent..."
This language typically forms part of the standard licence and access terms that govern how consumers may interact with an e-commerce platform and its services. In practical terms, the clause effectively bars the use of automated tools to access or repurpose a platform's content without explicit written permission.
Regulatory Framework: Unfair Terms under the CRA 2015
From a UK consumer law perspective, particularly under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Schedule 2, which govern unfair terms in consumer contracts, there are at least two key considerations. Amongst others, these provisions make it clear that any contract term that creates a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer may be deemed unfair.
- Limitation of Consumer Legitimate Rights
One possible consideration is the potential limitation of consumer legitimate rights. A consumer's legitimate right can reasonably include the ability to use an online platform efficiently and conveniently. Blanket prohibitions on agentic commerce or AI‑assisted shopping may prevent consumers from using personal automation tools to streamline purchases, compare prices, or manage activity across accounts. Such restrictions could constitute a disproportionate limitation and raise questions as to whether they qualify as unfair under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2. Limitation of Reasonable Use of Services
The second consideration relates to the limitation of reasonable use of services. UK courts can rightly assess whether contract terms unreasonably restrict a consumer's ability to use a service in normal, expected ways, such as browsing, purchasing, or comparing products. Viewed from this standpoint, a blanket ban on AI shopping agents could prevent consumers from enhancing ordinary shopping behaviors, like using tools to identify the best deal or manage purchases efficiently. While platforms may justify restrictions to protect system security, prevent fraud, or maintain operational integrity, a total prohibition may be disproportionate for small‑scale, legitimate consumer activity.
3. Potential Drafting Defects
From a contractual drafting perspective, an Automated Access Restriction clause, as currently drafted, may be overly broad and ambiguouswhen applied to AI shopping agents. While the clause prohibits "the use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools to extract...any substantial parts of the content...," it does not, considered alone, explicitly address AI agents acting on behalf of a consumer to browse, compare, or complete purchases.For this purpose, it isassumed that agentic commerce assistants do not necessarily involve data mining or content extraction,and are intended to perform the same actions a human user would ordinarily execute, albeit in an automated and more efficient manner. This distinction underscores the potential for differing interpretations of the clause when applied to legitimate, user-directed AI activity.
Furthermore, the clause fails to distinguish between fully autonomous bots and AI tools that operate under the direction of a user, creating ambiguity over whether such conduct falls within its scope. This lack of specificity could be a critical point of defense, as UK courts may often require contractual prohibitions to be clear and precise to be enforceable, particularly when the clause implicates innovative technologies or user-directed automation. Consequently, the clause's broad and somewhat undefined language leaves it vulnerable to interpretation challenges as appears not to unequivocally capture the type of agentic activity performed by AI shopping assistants.
Key Takeways
The Importance of Proportionality: In our view, proportionality is key. UK courts are likely to weigh the consumer's legitimate use and convenience against the platform's security and operational concerns. A blanket ban on AI‑assisted shopping, particularly one expressed through broad terms such as prohibitions on "robots," "data mining," and similar tools could be vulnerable to challenge as an unfair term, especially where AI use is limited to personal convenience and does not threaten platform integrity. Consumers seeking to automate shopping in limited, non‑disruptive ways may therefore have grounds to question the enforceability of such clauses under UK law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
