Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

Discriminating Against the Tool: AI Shopping Agents, Robot Shoppers, and the Title III Duty to Modify

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working draft. Not peer reviewed.

Written
September 2026
Version
v0.4
Pages
34
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

In September 2026, Amazon began refusing Meta's Muse, a consumer AI agent that shops on a user's instructions, with a pop-up telling customers that continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon's Conditions of Use. The fight is usually framed as a contest between platforms over who owns the customer. This Article reframes it around a customer the contest leaves out: the disabled person for whom the agent is the way in. A blind shopper, a person with a mobility impairment, or a person with agoraphobia who cannot enter a store may accomplish the purchase only by delegating it to a tool. When the store bans the tool, it bans that person, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act already has a name for that act. The Article makes three doctrinal moves. First, coverage: in every circuit, including those that confine Title III to physical places, a retailer that runs hundreds of physical grocery stores and uses its website and app to move their goods falls within the nexus doctrine. Second, liability: a blanket agent ban is a facially neutral policy that burdens disabled customers differently and more severely, so Title III's command to modify policies, practices, and procedures applies, and Amazon's own Agent Terms, which let it refuse any agent at its sole discretion, are an eligibility criterion that screens out. The Ninth Circuit's August 2026 holding that a shopping agent is a tool, and that the user is the one who accesses the site, removes the premise that the agent is a separate stranger the store may refuse. Third, defenses: the direct threat defense reaches only threats to others, and a customer's chosen risk to her own account falls outside it; security concerns can be met by conditions such as agent identification, which Amazon's own terms already require; lost advertising revenue is not a change in the nature of selling goods; and a store's offer of its own agent answers the claim only where it delivers a like experience. The Article then carries the argument from the browser to the sidewalk, where embodied robots will soon shop for people who cannot, and shows that the Department of Justice's refusal to let public accommodations ban classes of new mobility technology supplies the method. The Article names the practice at stake assistive delegation, and argues that Title III protects it.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • civil rights
  • ADA Title III
  • reasonable modification
  • assistive technology
  • AI agents
  • agentic commerce
  • assistive delegation
  • dignity of risk
  • web accessibility
  • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
  • humanoid robots

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of Discriminating Against the Tool: AI Shopping Agents, Robot Shoppers, and the Title III Duty to ModifyOpen the 51-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "Discriminating Against the Tool: AI Shopping Agents, Robot Shoppers, and the Title III Duty to Modify." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Draft, September 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/rjd66w/

References (58)

  1. A.L. ex rel. D.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 50 F.4th 1097 (11th Cir. 2022).
  2. A.L. ex rel. D.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 900 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2018).
  3. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
  4. Amazon. (2025, April 3). Terms of use when you shop brand sites by directing Amazon to complete a purchase on your behalf. Filed as Exhibit K, Dkt. No. 58-15, Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026).
  5. Amazon. (2025, May 30). Conditions of use. Filed as Dkt. No. 122-5, Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026). https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM
  6. Amazon Staff. (2025, April 3). Amazon’s new ‘Buy for Me’ feature helps customers find and buy products from other brands’ sites. About Amazon. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-shopping-app-buy-for-me-brands
  7. Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026) (order granting preliminary injunction), vacated, No. 26-1444 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026).
  8. Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 26-1444 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), reh’g en banc denied (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2026).
  9. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
  10. Argenyi v. Creighton University, 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013).
  11. 29 U.S.C. § 3002 (definitions for assistive technology programs).
  12. Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012).
  13. Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999).
  14. Be My Eyes. (2023, March 14). Introducing Be My AI (formerly Virtual Volunteer) for people who are blind or have low vision, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4. https://www.bemyeyes.com/news/introducing-be-my-ai-formerly-virtual-volunteer-for-people-who-are-blind-or-have-low-vision-powered-by-openais-gpt-4/
  15. Bishop, T. (2026, September 20). Amazon blocks Meta’s Muse AI assistant in new standoff over agentic shopping. GeekWire. https://www.geekwire.com/2026/amazon-blocks-metas-muse-ai-assistant-in-new-standoff-over-agentic-shopping/
  16. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
  17. Campaign US Staff. (2026, September 23). Amazon blocks Meta’s Muse from shopping on its platform. Campaign US. https://www.campaignlive.com/article/amazon-blocks-metas-muse-shopping-its-platform/1970733
  18. Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Association of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994).
  19. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).
  20. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
  21. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996).
  22. Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999).
  23. Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2003).
  24. Eilert, M., & Robinson, S. (2025). Empowering consumers with disabilities through generative AI cocreation of servicescape information. J. Pub. Pol’y & Marketing, 44, 457. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156251328341
  25. Ellison v. United States Postal Service, 84 F.4th 750 (7th Cir. 2023).
  26. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2) (2025).
  27. Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016).
  28. First Amended Complaint, Amazon.com Services LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09514-MMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Dkt. No. 122.
  29. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998).
  30. Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004).
  31. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021), vacated as moot, 21 F.4th 775 (11th Cir. 2021).
  32. Johnson v. Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1997).
  33. Johnson, J., Lewis, A., Mankoff, J., & Banner, O. (2026). “I don’t trust it, but I use it”: Navigating trust, privacy, and identity in disabled people’s use of generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790652
  34. Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC, 862 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2017).
  35. Kolt, N. (2026). Governing AI agents. Notre Dame L. Rev., 101, 335.
  36. McDonnall, M. C., Boydstun, J., & Steverson, A. (2026). Use of wearable devices and generative AI in the workplace by people with visual impairments. J. Visual Impairment & Blindness, 120, 134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x261423917
  37. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004).
  38. Mukherjee, D. (2022). Editor’s introduction: Disability, social justice, and dignity of risk at 50 years. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 65, 157. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2022.0010
  39. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
  40. National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Agoraphobia. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/agoraphobia
  41. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36 (2025).
  42. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 56,236 (Sept. 15, 2010).
  43. Oitzman, M. (2025, October 30). NEO humanoid designed for household use, available for preorder. The Robot Report. https://www.therobotreport.com/1x-announces-pre-order-launch-neo-humanoid-robot/
  44. Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999), opinion on reh’g, 204 F.3d 392 (2d Cir. 2000).
  45. Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
  46. Perez, S. (2026, September 8). Meta debuts its Muse AI agent. Will consumers trust it? TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/meta-debuts-its-muse-ai-agent-will-consumers-trust-it/
  47. Perske, R. (1972). The dignity of risk and the mentally retarded. Mental Retardation, 10(1), 24–27.
  48. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001).
  49. Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002).
  50. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  51. Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122 (2019).
  52. Schmitt v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, 965 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2020).
  53. Shrivastava, R. (2026, September 23). Amazon’s $68 billion reason to block Meta’s Muse. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/the-prompt/2026/09/23/amazons-68-billion-reason-to-block-metas-muse/
  54. Szwanek v. Jack in the Box, Inc., No. 20-16942 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2021).
  55. Tanis, E. S., & Lewis, C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the dignity of risk. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, (125), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386303
  56. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).
  57. Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000).
  58. Whole Foods Market. (2026, May 13). Whole Foods Market to bring its Daily Shop concept to three new U.S. markets. https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company-info/newsroom/news-releases/whole-foods-market-to-bring-its-daily-shop-concept-to-three-new-u-s-markets

All research