Thread

Amazon blocks Meta’s new Muse AI agent from shopping on amazon.com

153 points · 162 comments · simianwords

rkagerer · 1790016658 · focus · HN ↗
The right way to do this is to create an API or MCP or whatever catering to bots, and implement corresponding terms in your legal agreements (i.e. after approving a bot to interact with us, you're responsible for purchases it makes), along with some limits to prevent runaway shopping when Muse decides to binge.
Less friction = more shopping = more profits.
That used to be a concept companies like Amazon understood well. (As well as companies like Google in the context of web browsing and keeping it user-friendly as opposed to user-hostile).
If the bots mean customers are getting a better deal elsewhere, then you're doing something wrong elsewhere in your business model and need to go address that. Or eventually free market economics will, no matter how big an artificial moat you try to build.
1. steve1977 · 1790016835 · focus · HN ↗
  But how can they serve product suggestions this way?
  1. simonw · 1790016999 · focus · HN ↗
    Right. Agents represent a direct attack on a significant portion Amazon's revenue model.
    anthonypasq · 1790017821 · focus · HN ↗
    maybe agentic commerce will finally realize the micro-payments based internet that crypto people had been wishing would happen for years? Should there be stablecoin based micropayments built into MCP to charge for agentic interactions to replace the micropayment of an ad into someones eyeballs?
    Miraste · 1790021496 · focus · HN ↗
    This is (still) never going to happen. A more realistic outcome is a deal between Meta and Amazon to enable access in exchange for invisibly integrating advertisements into the agents' decisions.I don't know exactly what that will look like, but I'd bet we will see a version of it soon.
    anthonypasq · 1790028566 · focus · HN ↗
    very interesting, and im inclined to agree with you. Depends how centralized the agent economy is I suppose where bespoke deals are worth it.
    flessio · 1790038149 · focus · HN ↗
    It can only be this. And it will fail the same reason Alexa failed.
    Nobody will blindly trust Amazon to buy products when they know Amazon cannot and will not truly suggest the best product for the consumer.
    Alexa was supposed to be the voice gateway to purchasing. But nobody trusts the result Alexa picks because it will not default to the best value to the user - only the best value to Amazon.
    edmundsauto · 1790025545 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, agents work on behalf of the user and only cost compute (not time/attention, which is the ultimate human currency). They act on behalf of me not Amazon.
    It is my personally optimistic perspective on AI that it will mediate all interactions with 3P who are acting in their own interest and not mine. Ie, “my” agent.
    flessio · 1790037918 · focus · HN ↗
    This.
    Recently it was estimated that Amazon makes $30-80 billion(!) per year off not showing you the economically best results by deliberately disallowing sorting on $ per unit [1] to force sellers into ads. Amongst other tactics (ex. filter by country of origin).
    AI agents can sort on $ / unit to easily find you the best deal, rendering Amazon's various forms of paid placement irrelevant.
    Extend this to filtering Chinese slop brands (also not able to be filtered) and the significant portion of revenue starts looking like knocking back margins to the 3-5% range. Basically an existential threat.
    Amazon cannot allow AI agents and maintain current margins.
    [1] - <a href="https://pluralistic.net/2026/09/04/cheating-at-fraud/" rel="nofollow">https://pluralistic.net/2026/09/04/cheating-at-fraud/

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.