Shortly after Google announced its new universal commerce protocol for AI-powered sales agents, a consumer economy watchdog sounded the alarm.
In a post now viral on X Viewed nearly 400,000 times, Lindsay Owens wrote on Sunday: “Big/bad news for consumers. Google today announced how it plans to integrate shopping into its AI offerings, including search and Gemini. The plan includes “personalized upselling.” That is, analyzing your chat data and using it to overcharge you.
Owens is executive director of the consumer economics think tank Basic collaborative work. His concern comes from reviewing Google’s roadmap, because as well as to deepen some of its detailed specification documents. The roadmap includes a feature that will support “upselling,” which could help merchants promote more expensive items to AI sales agents.
She also denounced Google’s plans to adjust prices for programs such as new member discounts or loyalty-based pricing, which Google CEO Sundar Pichai described when he announced the new protocol at the National Retail Federation conference.
After TechCrunch inquired about Owens’ allegations, Google responded publicly on X and spoke directly with TechCrunch to dismiss the validity of his concerns.
In an article on X, Google replied that“These pricing claims are inaccurate. We strictly prohibit merchants from displaying higher prices on Google than what is listed on their site, period. 1/ The term “upselling” is not about overcharging. It is a standard way for retailers to display additional premium product options that people might be interested in. The choice is always up to the user as to what to purchase. 2/ “Direct Offers” is a pilot project which allows merchants to offer a deal at a *lower* price or add additional services like free shipping – it cannot be used to increase prices.
In another conversation with TechCrunch, a Google spokesperson said that Google’s sales agent does not have features that allow it to change a retailer’s prices based on individual data.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
Owens also pointed out that Google’s technical documents on managing a buyer’s identity say that: “The complexity of the scope should be hidden in the consent screen presented to the user. »
The Google spokesperson told TechCrunch that it’s not about hiding what the user is agreeing to, but about consolidating actions (get, create, update, delete, cancel, complete) instead of having a user accept each one separately.
Even if Owens’ concerns about this particular protocol are in vain, as Google claims, his general premise is still worth thinking about.
She warns that sales agents created by Big Tech could one day allow merchants to personalize prices based on what they think you’re willing to pay after analyzing your AI chats and shopping habits. This is rather than charging everyone the same price. She calls this “the pricing of surveillance.”
While Google says its agents can’t do such a thing right now, it’s also true that Google is, at heart, an advertising company serving brands and marketers. Last year, a federal court ordered Google to change a number of search business practices after ruling that the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior.
While many of us are excited to welcome a world in which a team of AI agents take care of pesky tasks for us (rescheduling doctor appointments, finding replacement mini-blinds), it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to see the kinds of abuse that will be possible.
The problem is that the big tech companies that are best positioned to build agent buying tools also have the most mixed incentives. Their business is based on serving sellers and collecting consumer data.
This means that AI-driven procurement could be a big opportunity for startups developing independent technology. We are seeing the first signs of AI-driven possibilities. Startups like Dupedwhich uses natural language queries to help people find affordable furniture, and Blessedwho use images and text for thrifty fashion, are the first entrants in this space.
In the meantime, the old adage probably remains true: buyer beware.
