A consumer watchdog just dropped a bombshell: Google's new AI shopping protocol could be bad news for your wallet.
Shortly after Google unveiled its Universal Commerce Protocol for AI-powered shopping agents, a consumer economics watchdog sounded the alarm. Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice her concerns in a post that quickly went viral, racking up nearly 400,000 views. She claims Google's plans include "personalized upselling," potentially using your chat data to overcharge you.
Owens' concerns are based on Google's roadmap and detailed specification documents. The roadmap includes a feature supporting "upselling," which could encourage merchants to promote more expensive items to AI shopping agents. She also highlighted Google's plans to adjust prices for programs like new-member discounts or loyalty-based pricing, which Google CEO Sundar Pichai discussed at the National Retail Federation conference.
But here's where it gets controversial: Google swiftly refuted Owens' claims. In responses on X and directly to TechCrunch, Google denied the allegations. They stated that they strictly prohibit merchants from showing higher prices on Google than on their sites. They clarified that "upselling" is about showcasing premium options, not overcharging. Furthermore, they emphasized that their "Direct Offers" pilot aims to provide lower prices or extra services, not to inflate costs.
And this is the part most people miss: Owens also pointed out that Google's technical documents on handling shopper identity state that: "The scope complexity should be hidden in the consent screen shown to the user.”
However, Google explained that this is not about hiding what the user agrees to, but consolidating actions.
Even if the specific protocol is not an issue, Owens' broader point raises important questions. She warns that AI-powered shopping agents could allow merchants to customize pricing based on your perceived willingness to pay, a practice she calls "surveillance pricing." While Google denies this capability currently, it's worth remembering that Google is fundamentally an advertising company. Last year, a federal court ordered Google to change several search business practices after ruling the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior.
While we eagerly anticipate AI agents handling everyday tasks, it's easy to see the potential for abuse. The companies best positioned to build these tools also have mixed incentives, prioritizing sellers and data harvesting. This could create opportunities for independent tech startups. Startups like Dupe, which helps find affordable furniture, and Beni, which uses images and text for thrifting fashion, are already entering this space.
What do you think? Do you agree with Owens' concerns, or do you trust Google's assurances? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
