The next iteration in the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has arrived, and organizations are racing to harness the potential of AI agents to create a dynamic new shopping experience. However, as powerful as agentic commerce can be, the road to adoption won’t be without hiccups—many of which will lead to a surge in disputes.



In a recent PaymentsJournal podcast, Joseph McLean, CEO and Co-Founder of Quavo, and Christopher Miller, Emerging Payments Analyst at Javelin Strategy & Research, discussed the challenges that can arise in the agentic commerce dispute process, the steps financial institutions can take to prepare, and how disputes can serve as an opportunity to engage and retain customers in the age of agentic commerce.





Navigating Uncharted Waters



Traditionally, as the volume of payments has grown, the number of disputed transactions has remained relatively stable. However, as agentic commerce gains traction, this pattern is unlikely to hold.



This shift raises many questions for organizations attempting to navigate these uncharted waters.







“There is going to be fraud on these transactions; there are going to be mistakes that are made by consumers or by AI,” McLean said. “The regulations aren't super clear on who is liable in these scenarios when consumers are making purchases. Is it the consumer? Is it the merchant? Is it the issuer? This also opens up new attack vectors for fraudsters, where they can get into the agentic commerce area themselves posing as other people and making purchases.”



In particular, there may be a rise in first-party, or consumer-engaged, fraud. For example, an AI agent might follow its instructions perfectly, yet if the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome, they may still dispute the transaction. Alternatively, a consumer could intentionally make a purchase with the plan to dispute it later—claiming fraud or an AI error.



These situations create grey areas, as liability becomes unclear when a consumer authorizes an agent but doesn’t directly complete the purchase themselves. It’s therefore critical that these issues are resolved before agentic commerce scales further, since confusion and ambiguity could be detrimental to adoption.



“Merchants, payment processors, and card issuers are all going to think about this in terms of liability and consumers are going to think about it in terms of experience,” Miller said. “If they have an experience that doesn't meet their expectations, that has implications for the growth of this ecosystem.”



“If a consumer doesn't believe that they're going to get what they want by delegating authority to choose or to purchase some piece of software that we're calling an agent right now, they might not use the agent,” he said. “That's a fundamental limiter on growth here.”



Trusting the Process



To develop a stronger framework around the dispute process, several factors should be considered by financial institutions.



First, FIs will need a mechanism to gauge the consumer’s intent when they instructed and authorized the AI agent.



Given that AI systems can hallucinate or misinterpret instructions, it will be important to verify whether the agent accurately carried out the customer’s request. Understanding consumer intent is also critical because bad actors may attempt to manipulate AI agents—for example, by creating fraudulent websites or impersonating legitimate services to trick AI into making unauthorized tran...