AI’s Negotiating Ability: More About Power & Future of Commerce

Anthropic recently stirred a new round of debate when reports emerged that it was exploring legal and ethical frameworks for AI agents negotiating on behalf of humans. 

Agentic AIs are starting to become part of workflows, and negotiating is definitely something that it can do (given the rapid evolution of the tech). And at some point, in a universe of wide AI deployment, it’s likely software will be speaking to software. 

This is where it becomes interesting as to the question of how much control AI should take over. Is it plausible that two AIs can figure out a large business or merger and acquisition deal? And one gets more curious when consumer-side AI starts to negotiate with the corporations, which usually have the upper hand with machine customer support, automated systems, and lots of data at bay. 

Jaspreet Bindra, co-founder of AI&Beyond, says the negotiating ability is more about power and it raises a much bigger question for the future of commerce.

One may wonder if businesses could be allowed to decline negotiations with consumer AI agents? 

“At its core, this is a question of representation. Consumers have always been able to rely on intermediaries — lawyers to negotiate disputes, brokers to secure deals and assistants to manage purchases and returns. AI agents could become the next extension of that right. The argument for AI representation is straightforward: if a consumer authorizes an agent to negotiate on their behalf, refusing to engage with that agent could amount to denying the consumer the same opportunity. Businesses already interact with non-human systems, from APIs to algorithmic trading platforms and travel aggregators,” Bindra tells Entrepreneur India. 

“Allowing companies to use AI internally while blocking independent consumer agents could create a significant imbalance. Businesses, however, have legitimate concerns about fraud, liability and automated abuse. Thousands of agents probing checkout systems for vulnerabilities or exploiting pricing errors could disrupt operations. Companies need ways to verify authorization, prevent misuse and require human approval for significant contractual commitments. A possible middle ground is to recognize a right to AI representation while establishing clear authentication and accountability standards, potentially through verified agent credentials linked to the consumer’s authorization,” he continues.

Differential Behavior 

As AI-powered shopping becomes more common, businesses could use the presence of a negotiating agent as another signal for personalizing prices, terms and access. This would introduce a new dimension to an already familiar practice: price discrimination.

A retailer might inflate an initial price to make a negotiated discount appear more attractive, introduce additional steps for AI-assisted shoppers or offer less favorable return terms. Businesses could also prioritize inventory for customers who purchase without negotiating.

Such practices would raise questions about transparency and fairness, particularly if consumers using AI agents consistently receive worse outcomes than those making comparable purchases directly.

The policy challenge is whether consumers should be protected from adverse treatment simply because they use an authorized AI agent. The underlying principle is familiar: consumers should be able to compare prices, seek discounts and make informed purchasing decisions without being unfairly penalized for doing so.

Pipaltree.ai’s Navin Narayan said it’s plausible that businesses could be allowed to provide differential pricing or offerings or services to AI-assisted consumers. 

“Some markets already work on negotiation, like buying a car in America, where the better bargainer gets the better deal. Others work on one price, take it or leave it. Both are honest. The dishonest version is charging the agent more while giving it nothing extra. Picture a shop where you pick up milk and the price of biscuits two aisles away goes up before you reach them. A brand that does this will earn the name of a shark. If a brand’s personality is a shark’s, that may suit it. A brand that wants to be seen as decent can’t afford it,” he said. 

Building the balance

Bindra highlights that the likely outcome is a combination of both, unfolding in stages.

“Phase one: Consumers gain negotiating power. For years, businesses have benefited from sophisticated data analytics, dynamic pricing, personalized marketing and interface designs that can make cancelling subscriptions or identifying hidden charges difficult. Independent AI agents could give consumers access to comparable capabilities,” he said.

They could identify unused subscriptions, flag unexpected fees, compare offers, challenge billing errors and negotiate better terms. In effect, consumers could gain a personal AI assistant capable of managing the complexities of everyday commerce.

In the second phase, according to Bindra, businesses develop countermeasures.

As consumer agents become more capable, companies will have incentives to adapt. They could introduce agent-detection systems, redesign purchasing processes, impose additional verification requirements or deploy their own AI negotiation systems. Loyalty programmes and differentiated terms could also become tools for influencing how consumers interact with businesses.

Some measures may be necessary to prevent fraud and protect systems. Others could become mechanisms for discouraging independent negotiation and preserving existing advantages. The distinction will depend on how transparently and fairly these practices are implemented.

Ultimately, the balance of power will be determined not by technology alone, but by the rules governing its use, Bindra said.

“The biggest opportunity is collective buying. Agents could help small clinics combine purchases or households negotiate service plans together. That could give ordinary buyers access to bargaining power previously available mainly to large institutions. Access to capable agents will matter enormously. In Anthropic’s small internal marketplace experiment, stronger agents achieved better outcomes, while people represented by weaker agents did not recognise their disadvantage,” Kalyan Sivasailam, CEO and founder at 5C Network said.

“That is an early warning about a new source of inequality. We should also protect people who never use an agent. Fair prices, clear terms and straightforward cancellation should remain basic expectations. It would be a strange definition of progress if everyone needed to buy an intelligent representative just to avoid being taken advantage of,” he continues. 

Call to policymakers

The world is still trying to regulate AI. Given the diversification and evolution, regulators are still catching up. The negotiating ability is likely to throw another curveball, though the likes of the US Federal Trade Commission and European regulators are set to play important roles. The precise legal mechanisms would however depend on existing laws and future regulatory decisions.

Sivasailam believes consumer-protection authorities should set the baseline, with sector regulators adding requirements for areas such as finance and healthcare.

“Every completed negotiation should produce a record both sides can retain: who authorised the agents, the agreed price, material conditions and what was accepted. Businesses should stand behind commitments made by their agents within their authorised scope. Agent providers should be accountable for failures under their control. The consumer needs a clear route to a remedy, without having to investigate which software company caused the problem,” he said. 

Bindra shares a more detailed perspective on the same: “The growing use of AI agents raises unresolved questions about authorization, contractual validity and enforcement.

Contract law will need to address when an agreement negotiated by an AI agent constitutes a binding commitment. Consumer protection frameworks will also need to clarify how existing rules apply when automated systems interact on behalf of individuals. Meanwhile, online platforms can impose terms restricting automated activity, including provisions allowing them to cancel orders suspected of being placed by bots.” 

“Together, these gaps could create an accountability problem. A business might advertise a price, allow an authorized AI agent to negotiate and accept revised terms, then refuse to honour the agreement on the grounds that the transaction involved an unauthorized automated system,” he adds.