When an autonomous agent executes an incorrect purchase or sends an unauthorized email, the question of who bears the financial loss remains a critical blind spot. This is not a hypothetical concern; our desk has tracked two live consumer products – one involving an agent purchase failure and another an agent email failure – that demonstrate how these errors create immediate operational crises. While previous coverage has mapped the contract mechanics and the Regulation E delegation trap, and analyzed payment-rail loss placement, the ultimate liability question is currently being answered by a combination of enforcement posture and state-level consumer protection. This analysis focuses on the enforcement and doctrine layer that is actively shaping these outcomes.
At the federal level, no statute has been enacted to address agent-driven harm. Various proposals have been introduced – the Stop Rogue AI Act, the AI Agent Accountability Act, a discussion draft from Rep. Trahan, alongside Sen. Warner’s agent-fiduciary bill – but none have passed into law. Congress has written no liability. Because congress.gov is blocked to this desk’s fetcher, specific bill numbers are not carried here; the legislative landscape is defined by circulating drafts rather than enacted mandates. For those navigating this regulatory map, the absence of federal law means that existing, often ill-fitting, statutes are the only tools available to regulators.
The Federal Trade Commission is filling this void through its enforcement posture rather than formal rulemaking. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, speaking at the Reuters Momentum AI event in September 2026, signaled that businesses cannot abdicate responsibility simply by delegating tasks to software. As documented in the PYMNTS report, Ferguson emphasized that giving an agent the power to act does not transfer legal responsibility to the code itself, and that reviews of incidents described as systems breaking loose found the systems following the instructions they were given. Two holes belong on the face of this section: the original Reuters wire returned a 401 error to this desk’s fetcher, so the account rides secondary reporting; and no retrieved source documents a completed FTC enforcement action on autonomous agent purchases. Ferguson’s remarks are posture, not adjudication.
In the absence of federal action, state attorneys general are asserting their authority. A coalition of 42 states has opened a multistate investigation into OpenAI, with New York serving a subpoena in June 2026 demanding records on advertising, consumer and health data, and the treatment of minors – consumer-protection authority reaching an AI company directly. Simultaneously, states are codifying new requirements. Connecticut’s Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency (CART) Act, which begins taking effect in October 2026, puts the bulk of enforcement in the state attorney general’s hands, as detailed by CT Mirror’s explainer. These state-level actions are creating a fragmented environment where compliance is dictated by the most active regulators.
This regulatory uncertainty is forcing a defensive posture in the market. Merchants are acutely aware of the risks; PYMNTS Intelligence data from September 2026 shows that 93% of merchants believe AI or agent providers should bear the financial loss when an agent makes an incorrect purchase. Yet, because no rule mandates this, merchants are responding by restricting access. Only 28% of merchants are willing to offer agents their full product range, effectively building a liability wall to protect themselves from the potential errors of autonomous systems.
The current state of affairs is defined by a lack of clarity. While some financial institutions, such as Wells Fargo, have updated their terms to deem agent transactions as authorized by the customer at the customer’s own risk – a development covered in this desk’s analysis of payment authorization – these are private contractual attempts to solve a public policy problem. Furthermore, the preemption theory discussed in our earlier work remains a critical factor in how firms approach forum-shopping in AI compliance. Without a federal statute to provide a uniform standard, the question of who pays will continue to be litigated through state-level consumer protection enforcement and the evolving, case-by-case posture of the FTC.
Ultimately, the liability question remains unresolved. Until Congress acts, the burden of loss will likely continue to be shifted through private contracts and contested in state courts. For builders and investors, the current environment requires a focus on the instructions given to agents and the internal policies governing their deployment, as these are the primary factors currently under the microscope of regulators.