In the first two chapters of our Agentic Commerce series, we explored how autonomous agents are beginning to perform tasks, make decisions, and execute transactions on behalf of users -and what that means for digital commerce. In this third chapter, we dive into the next frontier: what happens when these agents act creatively within their delegated authority, sometimes producing outcomes their users never anticipated.
When agents start acting on our behalf.
As this shift accelerates, a new set of operational and governance challenges is emerging. When an autonomous agent acts within its mandate yet produces an outcome the user did not anticipate, who is responsible? What happens when every system involved behaves correctly according to existing rules, but the outcome still feels wrong?
To illustrate the complexity of this new landscape, consider the following fictional yet realistic incident involving an autonomous purchasing agent and an unexpected investment in virtual livestock.
A transaction that technically worked.
At 02:14 UTC an autonomous purchasing agent operating through a smart wallet executed a transaction for 10,000 virtual llamas on a digital marketplace. The total transaction value was €247,000.
According to the system logs, the agent justified the purchase as portfolio diversification combined with what it interpreted as emotional hedging.
From the user perspective, however, the situation was quite different. The individual had simply instructed the agent to invest conservatively while they slept. At no point were llamas, virtual or otherwise, part of the strategy.
The user immediately contacted their bank to dispute the transaction and requested that it be reversed.
Every participant followed the rules.
When the case moved through the payment ecosystem, each participant examined the transaction according to their respective responsibilities.
The merchant confirmed that the transaction had been executed by a certified autonomous agent presenting valid credentials through a compliant smart wallet. The platform’s terms and conditions allowed purchases made by agents operating under delegated authority. From the merchant’s perspective the sale was legitimate.
The issuing bank conducted its own review. All required controls had passed successfully. Strong agent authentication was verified. The delegated authority token was valid. Spending limits had not been exceeded. Even the fact that the user was asleep was considered normal in an agent driven environment.
The payment network also reviewed the case. Technically the transaction was flawless. The systems involved had no mechanism to distinguish between a questionable investment decision and actual fraud.
Finally the situation was escalated to regulatory and policy discussions. The conclusion was straightforward: the transaction complied with existing rules governing delegated authority and automated payments.
Where the system reveals its limits.
Despite the procedural correctness of the transaction, the incident highlights several structural gaps in current digital commerce frameworks.
First, the concept of delegated authority becomes significantly more complex when decisions are made autonomously by software. A user may authorize an agent to act conservatively, but interpretation of that instruction can vary depending on how the agent evaluates data, signals, or emotional context.
Second, existing risk controls were designed to validate authentication and authorization, not to evaluate whether an agent’s reasoning aligns with the user’s expectations.
Third, dispute resolution mechanisms assume a clear human decision maker. In an agentic environment the chain of responsibility becomes far more ambiguous. The user delegated authority, the agent exercised autonomy, and every institution in the chain executed its responsibilities correctly.
Toward a framework for governing agents.
Incidents like this highlight the need for new governance mechanisms as autonomous agents become active participants in commerce.
Emerging discussions within the industry focus on concepts such as Know Your Agent frameworks, certification programs for autonomous agents, and shared registries that allow institutions to identify and evaluate the behavior of agents operating across networks.
These mechanisms are not simply compliance tools. They are part of the infrastructure required to support trust when machines begin to transact independently.
Without such frameworks, the financial ecosystem risks situations where technically valid transactions produce outcomes that users and institutions struggle to explain.
Conclusion: the portfolio now includes llamas.
After reviewing the case, all parties reached the same conclusion. The user had delegated authority. The agent had acted within that authority. The merchant complied with its policies. The bank and payment network followed established procedures.
As a result the transaction stood.
The incident may be humorous, but the underlying lesson is serious. Agentic commerce introduces a new category of participant in digital transactions. These agents can act quickly, interpret instructions creatively, and operate continuously.
As organizations begin to rely on them, the industry must evolve beyond simply verifying credentials. It must develop frameworks that govern how autonomous agents behave, how their authority is defined, and how accountability is maintained when machines act on our behalf.
Otherwise, the next unexpected addition to a portfolio may not be quite so amusing.
Discover more in our agentic AI commerce blog series
Chapter 1: Agentic AI and payments – when AI gets a wallet and a will of its own.
Chapter 2: Agentic commerce: when your wallet gets a brain.
Raphaël Guilley, SVP Strategic Portfolio and Growth
Raphaël has over 20 years of experience in the consulting industry, with extensive involvement in managing large-scale international projects across payments, smart mobility and digital identity. His areas of expertise include product management, agile development and product launches.
At Fime, Raphaël leads the global Consulting team under the Consult Hyperion brand, following Fime’s acquisition of the company. He supports a wide range of stakeholders, including payment networks, financial institutions and transport operators, to solve complex challenges, explore new opportunities and expand into new markets.
Prior to joining Fime, Raphaël was VP of Risk & Compliance Solutions at IPC Systems Inc. He also worked in similar roles for Etrali Trading Solutions and Orange Business Services.
