AI Pricing, Copyright & Bot Traffic: Market Risks

A coalition of 23 United Kingdom organisations, including the English Premier League, has warned the Albanese government that Australia could become a "content laundering nation" for AI companies if copyright protections are weakened. The warning comes as control of digital markets grows harder to pin down. Algorithms most people never see are reshaping ownership of creative work, prices shoppers pay and traffic across the web.

The Copyright Fight

The coalition's concern is straightforward: if Australia loosens its copyright rules, AI developers could train models on protected material without paying its creators. The English Premier League's participation signals how much sports broadcasters and rights holders believe they have at stake. For a government seeking technology investment, encouraging innovation without giving away private property is a narrow balancing act, and the base reporting leaves the Albanese government's final position unresolved.

Bots Take Over the Web

An Australian Financial Review headline put a number on automated activity: AI bots now generate more than 57 per cent of web traffic, the publication reported, describing risks for retail, banking and travel. The Financial Review's Companies page promoted the item, titled "Rise of the rogue AI bots a horror show for retail, banking and travel," by associate editor Joyce Moullakis. Its summary said JPMorgan filters out external artificial intelligence agents. The page offered no further detail, so the risk remains a headline claim rather than a documented breakdown.

Who Sets the Price?

Price-setting is where consumer anxiety runs hottest. Digital price labels are replacing paper tags in grocery aisles, while software can predict how shoppers might respond to a price. Katie Thomas, who leads an internal consumer behavior think tank at management consulting firm Kearney, put the tension plainly. "There are major tensions happening right now between who's really going to have the power with some of these algorithms and usage of bots and AI: the companies or the shopper," she said.

Walmart CEO John Furner gave the company's answer in a blog post last month. Digital tags save workers' time and keep prices current, he wrote, and they aren't used to raise prices based on weather, time of day or an individual shopper. "We price the product, not the person," Furner wrote. Thomas said social media posts falsely claim that electronic shelf labels Walmart plans to install in all its U.S. stores scan shoppers' faces or cellphones to set individualized prices.

The data behind the fear is thinner than the rhetoric. Decodo tracked price changes across electronics, clothing and home-improvement supplies in 2025; about half of the U.S. changes it recorded were decreases, according to Gabriele Vitke, a senior product marketing manager. Researchers tracking an unnamed grocery chain found "virtually no surge pricing" after digital labels arrived. Asa Farquhar of Relex Solutions said retailers typically update shelf prices weekly because shoppers value consistency. "Changing prices throughout the day, the way airlines or rideshare apps do, is exceedingly rare in grocery and general merchandise today," Farquhar said.

Regulation and Its Limits

Lawmakers have responded. Legislators in at least 30 states considered pricing bills this year, including measures on algorithmic and personalized pricing, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut have enacted restrictions on using shoppers' personal data to set prices. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed an enforcement policy warning that failure to disclose individualized pricing based on personal data could violate consumer protection law.

Enforcement records show both the power and cost of these rules. California prosecutors sued Target in 2022, alleging its app showed lower prices before shoppers entered stores and higher ones once inside. Target agreed to a $5 million settlement and a ban on geofencing technology used to raise prices, while denying it personalized prices based on guest data. A 2025 investigation by Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative and More Perfect Union found Instacart shoppers saw different prices for identical products at the same stores. Instacart later ended tests that randomly assigned shoppers to groups.

The Federal Trade Commission's antitrust case against Amazon offers the sharpest example of algorithmic risk. Filed in 2023, the suit challenged an internal tool codenamed Project Nessie, which the agency alleged generated more than $1 billion in excess profits by identifying prices competitors would likely follow. Amazon said the allegations "grossly mischaracterize" the tool, which it says it tested for a few years, found wanting and scrapped before the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for next year. McDonald's faces a similar consumer lawsuit alleging its pricing system used nonpublic sales data from competing locations, a claim the company calls "filled with inaccuracies."

The National Retail Federation argues algorithmic pricing simply helps stores respond to supply, demand, seasonality and competitor prices. A 2025 survey of more than 2,200 business leaders across 28 countries by Simon-Kucher found 41% used AI to gather market intelligence and 28% used it for real-time price optimization.

Why This Matters:

The fiscal and market stakes are real, and they cut in more than one direction. Copyright protections are property rights; weakening them transfers value from creators to developers who didn't pay for the work they used. Australia's position as a potential "content laundering nation," as the coalition puts it, raises a question of economic sovereignty as much as creative policy. On pricing, the evidence reported so far points toward competition and shopper choice rather than widespread manipulation: prices fell about half the time, grocers avoided intraday changes, and companies dropped tests when criticized. Yet the Target settlement and Amazon case show opaque algorithms can cross into anticompetitive conduct. That's where authorities should first test enforcement of existing law, rather than impose sweeping new mandates. Governments that intervene before the facts are settled risk burdening honest retailers while leaving real bad actors to litigate the details.