Anxiety about algorithmic manipulation reached a fever pitch this week when a viral warning about Google’s new AI shopping protocol racked up 400,000 views in hours. The controversy exposes deeper questions about who gets to control the future of commerce—and whether current safeguards can prevent AI from becoming a tool for exploitation.
Google unveiled its Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) at the National Retail Federation conference on January 11, partnering with retail giants like Shopify, Target, and Walmart to create a “shared language” between AI agents and shopping platforms. The protocol enables native checkout through Google’s AI surfaces without forcing users to jump between apps.
The Watchdog’s Warning
Lindsay Owens spotted potential for algorithmic price manipulation in Google’s technical documentation.
Lindsay Owens, executive director of consumer watchdog Groundwork Collaborative, wasn’t impressed by the seamless shopping pitch. Her viral X post cut straight to the concern: “Google is out today with an announcement of how they plan to integrate shopping into their AI offerings including search and Gemini. The plan includes ‘personalized upselling.’ I.e. Analyzing your chat data and using it to overcharge you.”
Owens pointed to specific elements in Google’s roadmap—”cross-sell and upsell modules” and flexible pricing programs supporting loyalty-based offers—as potential vectors for what she called “surveillance pricing.” Think dynamic pricing that adjusts based on your chat history, behavioral patterns, and perceived willingness to spend, rather than offering everyone the same price.
Senator Elizabeth Warren amplified the warning, calling the practice “plain wrong” and accusing Google of helping retailers “trick you into spending more money.”
Google Pushes Back Hard
The tech giant denies enabling price manipulation while clarifying what “upselling” actually means.
Google’s response was swift. “These claims around pricing are inaccurate. We strictly prohibit merchants from showing prices on Google that are higher than what is reflected on their site, period. 1/ The term “upselling” is not about overcharging. It’s a standard way for retailers to show additional premium product options that people might be interested in. The choice is always with the user on what to buy. 2/ “Direct Offers” is a pilot that enables merchants to offer a *lower* priced deal or add extra services like free shipping — it cannot be used to raise prices.”
The company clarified that “upselling” refers to standard retail practice—showing premium or complementary products customers might want—with choice remaining entirely with users. A Google spokesperson told TechCrunch that Business Agent “does not have functionality that would allow it to change a retailer’s pricing based on individual data.”
The company also emphasized that its Direct Offers pilot can only provide lower prices or additional services like free shipping, never price increases.
Even Owens acknowledged the nuance: her concerns focus more on future potential for abuse than current UCP capabilities. The fundamental tension isn’t about today’s safeguards—it’s about whether those safeguards can withstand the pressure of Google’s advertising-dependent business model and merchant partnerships as agentic commerce matures.
The controversy reflects a broader cultural moment where consumers are increasingly aware of algorithmic manipulation, from TikTok’s addictive feeds to Amazon’s recommendation engines. Whether Google’s current denials hold up as AI shopping becomes the norm remains the trillion-dollar question.
