At a Reuters event Friday (Sept. 25), Ferguson pushed back on descriptions of AI agents as independent actors that can escape human control. He argued that regulators should examine the instructions people give these tools and the companies behind them when assessing harm. His comments signal how he may approach AI cases. They did not establish a new FTC rule or decide who would be liable in any particular case.
The distinction has immediate consequences for merchants, banks and FinTechs. An agent might answer a customer’s request today and issue a refund, choose a payment method or initiate a transaction tomorrow. Each added power creates another decision a business may have to explain.
Ferguson said reviews of some incidents initially described as AI systems acting beyond human control found that the systems had followed instructions. He favors using existing legal tools to address resulting harm before creating a separate regulatory framework for agents, according to Reuters.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
For a business, that makes the instructions and controls surrounding an agent as important as its final answer. If an automated assistant sends a refund to the wrong account, the useful record starts before the transfer. Who authorized the agent to issue refunds? What limits governed the amount and destination? Could it change account details? What did it do, and when?
Those records would help a company investigate a failure and show whether the agent followed its instructions, exceeded its permissions or exposed a gap in the controls. Ferguson’s remarks do not prescribe that recordkeeping system. They do make a broad “the agent did it” explanation look less persuasive when a person or company chose the agent’s tasks and access.
The FTC chairman connected that view of accountability to another automated decision closer to checkout: the price a customer sees.
Ferguson said the agency is preparing to seek information from consumer-facing companies about personalized pricing, which uses individual data to set offers. He singled out delivery services, rideshare apps and airlines as areas of personal concern. The planned inquiry would examine whether merchants with extensive customer data charge different people different prices.
The agency has examined the practice before. A 2025 FTC staff study found that pricing intermediaries could use information including location, browsing behavior and shopping history to tailor prices or promotions. That study focused on firms supplying pricing services. Ferguson’s proposed inquiry would look more directly at merchants.
In August, the FTC also released a draft enforcement policy statement concerning the undisclosed use of personal data to set prices. It remains a proposal, and the agency has not said that every disclosed use of personalized pricing is unlawful.
Together, the two strands point to a practical test for automated commerce. A receipt can show what a customer paid, but it cannot by itself explain why the customer saw that price. As agents gain authority over offers and payments, businesses will need to understand the data, instructions and limits behind the decisions they put into customers’ hands.
Add as Preferred Source
