TL;DR: AI agent orders accelerated as Forter detected Muse and the broader mix shifted from protocol-led checkout to scraping agents. Merchants now need better agent attribution because structured protocol traffic and browser-driven agent traffic create very different trust and fraud signals.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Forter: “AI Agent Order Data: Agentic Commerce on Forter’s Network”.
By the numbers:
- Forter recorded 24% month-over-month growth from August to September.
- Agentic orders were up by 229% month-over-month during the week after Muse launched.
- Muse placed 49% of agentic orders during the week of October 19.
Key questions
Q: Why do scraping agents create more trust risk than protocol agents?
A: Scraping agents create more trust risk because they imitate normal browsing while collecting data without a meaningful authorisation chain, so the merchant cannot rely on user intent, session continuity, or a stable identity.
Q: How does delegated checkout authority change fraud controls?
A: Delegated checkout authority means the merchant must treat the agent as acting under a human’s consent, so fraud controls shift from simple bot detection to authority verification, transaction binding, and revocation.
Q: How should merchants classify agentic checkout traffic?
A: Merchants should classify agentic checkout traffic by whether the agent is authorised, the customer is present, and the request can be tied to a verified human or delegated authority.
Practitioner guidance
- Classify agentic traffic by trust class Separate protocol-mediated orders, browser-driven scraping activity and human checkout sessions in fraud and identity logic so they are not scored as one population.
- Preserve actor attribution at checkout Capture the agent platform, session context and purchase path so an order can be tied back to the correct principal or delegated system.
- Re-tune bot and fraud rules for agentic commerce Adjust detection models to account for legitimate AI agents that resemble shoppers, especially where structured protocol signals are absent.
Bottom line: Agentic commerce is creating a trust problem at checkout because merchants must distinguish verified protocol traffic from browser-driven automation.
Glossary terms: Agentic Commerce, Protocol Agent, Scraping Agent, Agentic Attribution Gap
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
Agentic checkout is becoming a governance problem, not just a commerce feature. Once merchants must classify protocol agents, scraping agents and human shoppers differently, identity signals become part of the payment control stack. The useful distinction is not whether a system is automated, but whether it presents verifiable intent and attributable authority at the point of purchase. Merchants that cannot make that distinction will over-trust some sessions and over-block others.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 19% of organisations give AI systems dramatically more access than human employees, nearly one in five granting unrestricted privilege, according to the 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- Systems with least-privileged AI access had a 17% incident rate vs 76% for over-privileged systems. Organisations failing to scope AI access properly are 4.5x more likely to experience a security incident, according to the 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What happens when agentic commerce traffic becomes normal?
A: When agentic commerce traffic becomes normal, merchants need to distinguish routine automation from anomalous behaviour using policy, identity, and behavioural signals rather than treating all automated sessions as suspicious. That means recognising verified agent activity, maintaining per-agent scope and revocation, and adapting fraud rules so legitimate agents are not blocked while unauthorised ones still trigger challenge or denial.
👉 Read our full editorial: AI agent checkout shifts toward scraping bots, not protocols