The Pulse
Australia’s ACCC Flags Shopping Agents as a Competition Risk
Australia’s competition watchdog told a parliamentary inquiry that AI agents shopping and transacting for consumers are a key focus. The ACCC cited risks including collusion, entrenched market power and personalised pricing, while saying it
AI.info Team · Written with AI ·
Australia’s competition watchdog is warning that AI agents could collude or reinforce market power as they shop and transact for consumers. But the ACCC told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday, October 16, that it has seen no evidence of anticompetitive conduct by agents in Australia—and is not yet recommending changes to the law on personalised pricing.
The tension puts the regulator’s current stance in focus: agentic AI is a key area for scrutiny, but the risks it identifies remain prospective. ACCC officials also acknowledged uncertainty over who would be liable if an AI agent engaged in unlawful conduct, while saying the agency is testing tools to detect potential problems.
Risks without evidence of agent misconduct
The ACCC’s concerns centre on systems that can make choices and take actions for users, including finding products and completing transactions. If agents become a route through which consumers reach sellers, their choices could affect which businesses get customers and how competition works. The watchdog warned that market power could become entrenched and that agents might collude.
That warning is not a finding that Australian shopping agents have already coordinated or harmed competition. MLex reported that the ACCC told the inquiry it had seen no evidence of anticompetitive conduct by agents in Australia. The distinction matters: the regulator is describing risks it wants to monitor, not announcing an enforcement case or alleging a current breach.
Personalised prices raise a separate question
The ACCC also raised the possibility that highly personalised pricing could exploit vulnerable consumers. Yet officials said the agency was not currently recommending further legal changes in that area. The position leaves open how the watchdog will assess such pricing as agents and their access to consumer information develop.
Liability presents another unresolved issue. If an agent acts in a way that breaks competition or consumer law, it may not be clear how responsibility should be assigned among the user, the business providing the agent and the seller involved in the transaction. The inquiry heard that the ACCC is testing detection tools, though the available account of its evidence does not specify what those tools do.
The ACCC had warned about collusion before
The inquiry’s focus builds on the ACCC’s earlier public assessment of AI. In December 2025, the commission said agentic systems could change how users deal with businesses online and affect their use of digital services. ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb identified “the possibility of AI agents colluding, even where this is not expressly intended or programmed by human creators,” in the commission’s December 2025 statement.
That statement also warned that closer integration between AI products and established digital platforms could raise barriers to entry or make consumers less willing or able to switch providers. The ACCC backed continued monitoring of emerging technologies under Australia’s proposed digital competition regime. Its evidence to the inquiry brings that broad concern to a more specific setting: software acting as a shopper and intermediary between consumers and businesses.
Monitoring comes before a new pricing proposal
The ACCC’s message to lawmakers combines heightened attention with restraint. It is treating agentic shopping as a key competition issue and testing ways to detect conduct, while acknowledging that it has not found anticompetitive activity by agents in Australia. On personalised pricing, it has not asked for additional legal changes.
The inquiry now has the watchdog’s concerns and its evidentiary caveat on record: the risks include collusion, concentrated market power and consumer exploitation, but the ACCC says it has yet to see agent-led anticompetitive conduct in Australia.