Article 26 would allow consumers to delegate purchasing decisions but require fresh approval when the agent’s provider receives payment for proposing a contract or has a conflict involving the merchant. The provision attempts to reconcile delegated purchasing with the paid recommendations underpinning digital commerce.
Barry Scannell, a partner at Irish law firm William Fry, highlighted the provision in a LinkedIn analysis on Tuesday (Nov. 10). Scannell pointed to consumer protection as the emerging framework for governing commercial AI agents, using a hypothetical hotel-booking to illustrate the tension. An agent operating within an approved budget could still need confirmation if its recommendation carries a commercial incentive.
For providers, that could make authorization a product feature with legal consequences. Spending permissions, approval settings and records of consumer instructions could become central to demonstrating whether an automated purchase respected the consumer’s choices.
Under the framework Scannell describes, consumers would expressly choose at first use whether to approve every contract, require confirmation for specified contracts using criteria including a maximum price and time limit, or allow purchases without further confirmation. Settings would be adjustable at any time, with the selection confirmed on a durable medium.
Operationally, a direction such as “buy my usual groceries” would need translation into usable permissions. Providers would have reason to clarify whether that instruction covers substitutions, increased delivery charges, different sellers or recurring purchases. Records connecting instructions, later changes and completed transactions could help resolve disputes about what the consumer authorized.
The commercial implications could be substantial. An assistant financed by merchant referral payments might repeatedly interrupt routine shopping for approval. A consumer-funded assistant could potentially offer a smoother experience, although charging a subscription would not eliminate conflicts arising from affiliated sellers or preferential recommendations.
Those are potential business consequences, rather than explicit distinctions between subscription and advertising models. The practical outcome would depend on the final wording and interpretation of the payment and conflict provisions.
The draft also contains details beyond Scannell’s post. Article 26 addresses systems contracting with their own providers as well as other merchants. Agents would transmit contact details needed to conclude the contract, while merchants would send intelligible contract confirmations on a durable medium. Wallet-based authentication would be optional. Financial services would be excluded, and merchants could not require consumers to use automated systems.
A companion provision, Article 27, would accommodate transactions concluded solely through automated systems on both sides. Merchants could supply precontractual information in machine-readable form while retaining an intelligible durable confirmation for consumers.
That could encourage retailers to build purchasing channels around structured information on prices, delivery and contractual terms. For compliance teams, ensuring that machine-readable offers match the eventual transaction could become as important as reviewing the checkout page a person sees.
Authorization controls would not answer every liability question, however. The draft preserves contract-law rules on formation and validity. Responsibility for when an agent exceeds instructions, makes an unexpected purchase or encounters changing terms remains to be addressed.
There is still a long road before binding rules emerge. The leaked text is unofficial, with a European Commission proposal expected Wednesday (Nov. 11). Parliament and member states would then negotiate the legislation. For businesses, the immediate signal is that purchasing authority and commercial influence may need to be designed, documented and reviewed together.
