Tony Wood examines liability in agentic commerce. Consumer protection, dispute resolution, insurance models, and the argument that delegation design is liability design..
| Dimension | Traditional UX | Agentic Experience Design (AXD) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary material | Attention and affordance | Trust and delegation |
| User state | Present, navigating | Absent, delegating |
| Design output | Screens and interfaces | Outcomes and constraints |
| Temporal model | Session-based | Relationship-based |
| Success metric | Task completion | Trust calibration |
When an AI agent makes a purchase that the human principal did not intend, the question of liability depends on where the failure occurred. If the agent acted within its delegation mandate but the outcome was poor (e.g., the product was defective), liability falls on the merchant under standard consumer protection law. If the agent exceeded its delegation mandate (e.g., purchased a product category the human did not authorise), liability depends on whether the agent platform had adequate control
Dispute resolution in agentic commerce requires new mechanisms because the traditional model - the customer contacts the merchant to complain - does not apply when the customer is an agent. Three dispute resolution models are emerging: (1) Agent-mediated dispute resolution, where the agent that made the purchase also handles the dispute on behalf of the human principal. (2) Platform-mediated dispute resolution, where the agent platform provides a dispute resolution service that arbitrates be
When an AI agent purchases the wrong product, overpays for a service, or commits to a contract the human principal never intended - who is liable? The human who delegated the authority? The agent platform that executed the transaction? The merchant who accepted the order? This question - the liability question - is the unresolved foundation of This essay argues that liability in agentic commerce is not primarily a legal problem. It is a design problem. The clarity of the delegation mandate, the robustness of the consent architecture, the transparency of the agent's decision-making, and the quality of the failure architecture - these design decisions determine where liability falls when things go wrong. Organisations that treat liability as an afterthought - something for the legal team to sort out after the product launches - will discover that their design decisions have created liability exposure they cannot manage. Organisations that treat liability as a design constraint from the beginning will build systems where liability allocation is clear, fair, and enforceable. Traditional commerce has a clear liability chain. The customer makes a purchase decision. The merchant fulfils the order. If the product is defective, the merchant is liable under product liability law. If the merchant misrepresents the product, the merchant is liable under consumer protection law. If the customer changes their mind, the customer bears the cost (subject to return policies and cooling-off periods). The liability chain is linear: customer → merchant → supplier. Agentic commerce introduces a new actor - the agent - and the liability chain becomes a triangle. The human principal delegates authority to the agent. The agent evaluates merchants and executes a purchase. The merchant fulfils the order. If something goes wrong, the liability question has three possible answers: the principal (who delegated the authority), the agent platform (which exercised the authority), or the me