Generative AI-powered shopping has been gaining steam in the latter half of this year and is shaping up to be one of the top trends as we move into 2026. The availability and convenience of Gen AI tools are shifting consumers’ shopping habits away from traditional browser-based shopping as these new tools become more deeply embedded in the shopping experience.

Adobe for Business published a report earlier this year that shows momentum in the use of generative AI-powered chat services. The report, which surveyed more than 5,000 US individuals, aimed to complement a study conducted during the 2024 holiday shopping season that examined consumers’ usage of Gen AI-powered chat services and browsers.

There are six standout findings from the report that exemplify the shift in consumers’ habits.

Generative AI traffic to retail sites exploded

Adobe found that the first surge during the 2024 holiday season reached a growth of 1,300% year-over-year. Following this, the recent data shows that traffic from Gen AI-powered chat tools and browsers has continued to accelerate, reaching a 4,700% year-over-year increase as of July 2025. AI-driven visits now represent a meaningful and fast-growing share of retail shopping and research activity.

Over one-third of US consumers have used AI for shopping

According to Adobe’s 5,000-person survey, 38% of consumers have used generative AI at some point during their shopping process, while 52% plan to do so this year. Shoppers are most commonly using it for product research (53%), recommendations (40%), finding deals (36%), creating shopping lists (30%), and gift ideas (30%).

AI shoppers are more engaged and informed

Consumers that arrive at a website from AI-powered sources spend 32% more time per visit, view 10% more pages, and have a 27% lower bounce rate than those coming from traditional sources such as search, social media, and email. Shoppers using Gen AI also report an increase in satisfaction, with 85% of users saying that AI improved their shopping experience and 73% now rely on it as their primary product research tool. Overall, shoppers using Gen AI tools are more engaged than shoppers using traditional ecommerce methods.

Conversions still lag

While consumers are increasingly using Gen AI tools for browsing, many stop there and fail to actually make the purchase. In fact, Adobe’s study showed that AI-driven traffic is still 23% less likely to convert than traditional traffic. This figure has actually shown a bit of improvement over the past few months. The study showed that conversion rates were 49% lower in January 2025 and 38% lower in April 2025. This suggests that consumers increasingly trust AI-powered recommendations enough to complete purchases directly.

Revenue-per-visit from AI sources is catching up to non-AI visits

When it comes down to dollar figures, it turns out that Gen AI-powered shopping isn’t as valuable, though that is quickly changing. Adobe’s study found that AI-driven revenue-per-visit rose 84% from January 2025 to July 2025. While AI-driven visits were worth 97% less than non-AI visits in July 2024, they were only 27% less than a non-AI visit a year later. This indicates shoppers are moving from using AI purely for research to actually buying through AI-driven paths.

Mobile is fueling AI-driven shopping growth

According to the study, in July 2025, 26% of AI-driven retail traffic came from mobile. This is up by 8 percentage points from 18% six months earlier. Adobe expects mobile AI use to further close the conversion gap, given consumers’ tendency toward more impulse-driven shopping on phones.

All of these statistics paint a picture of what we can expect to happen to ecommerce in the next few years. As consumers increasingly turn to their preferred Gen AI tool when they start their shopping journey, we’re witnessing the early stages of a new kind of marketplace. In ecommerce 2.0, we’ll see discovery, recommendation, and payment converge within a single interface. Competition in this new frontier will no longer be about who owns the checkout. Rather, it will centralize around who owns the conversation that leads there. As the 2025 holiday shopping season picks up, expect to see fintechs, retailers, and payment providers racing to claim their spot in the Gen AI shopping ecosystem.

Photo by Ivan Samkov

Stablecoins may have saturated headlines earlier this year, but September has marked a turning point to the industry. This month has brought four large announcements in agentic payments, demonstrating that the technology has moved from fringe to forefront.

And while the announcements speak volumes about how quickly technology developments move in fintech, it also sends seven major signals to banks and fintechs.

A preferred protocol layer emerges

Earlier this week, agentic commerce platform Circuit & Chisel landed $19.2 million to launch ATXP, a web-wide protocol. The protocol will not only position Circuit & Chisel as an orchestrator of agentic commerce, but it will also help streamline workflows and enable businesses to operate faster and more efficiently by leveraging revenue-generating autonomous agents.

The launch and growth of ATXP show the industry’s movement toward a web-wide standard for agentic payments. It also highlights how payments are shifting from app-specific functions into a common infrastructure layer.

Big Tech wants to lead

Google and PayPal made headlines last week when they announced their partnership on agentic shopping, embedded payments, payments processing, and more. The two are positioning themselves at the forefront of agentic payments and commerce and are providing developers with tools to engage in the new era of digital commerce.

The partnership between Google and PayPal shows that Big Tech wants to be at the forefront in shaping how commerce and payments flow online in the future. This early movement is a warning to players that sit back on the sidelines and wait for others to move first. Slow-moving banks and fintechs risk being relegated to backend providers unless they strategically find their own niche in the space.

Crypto and Web3 join forces with platforms

Also last week, Google announced that it is leveraging the x402 protocol within its Agent Payments Protocol (AP2) to allow AI agents to pay each other using stablecoins on Coinbase. With the ability to handle payments on behalf of their end users, agents will now be able to complete certain tasks that previously required manual oversight, such as paying for data crawls, services, or microtasks.

The launch merges crypto protocols and mainstream platforms, and is a great example of how agentic payments won’t be limited to decentralized finance environments. Instead, we’ll see agentic payments within web browsers, search, and commerce platforms.

Credit has an agentic future

After landing strategic backing from Citi Ventures earlier this month, agentic AI-powered credit data and payments platform Spinwheel plans to fuel growth, expand its agentic AI platform, build out its data sets and add new products. Additionally, Citi Ventures will advise the company on banking-specific product use cases.

This funding shows backing for the idea that consumer credit and agentic payments will be integrated in the future. It shows the breadth of potential for agents to manage payments, debt repayment, refinancing, and credit optimization.

The shift to autonomous decisioning

All four of these announcements demonstrate how payments will move from static, user-initiated tasks to autonomous, rule-driven events. To stay current, banks and fintechs will need to embed decisioning logic, risk scoring, and compliance into their payment flows.

Regulators will take notice

While regulators don’t have a lot of time (or expertise), agentic payments are sure to get their attention. These announcements around autonomous money movement have raised concerns around AML, KYC, and consumer protection issues. Firms that build compliance into agentic systems will be one step ahead in winning not only consumer trust but also regulators’ approval.

The race for standards is on

Much like open finance, the world of agentic payments will desperately need to abide by an agreed upon set of standards. Because competing protocols and ecosystems could fragment adoption, the disorganization could not only disrupt the user experience, but it could also wreak havoc on creating a clean, regulated environment. Whichever parties are involved in driving standards for payment rail interoperability will take the role that SWIFT did in shaping payments rails in the 1970s.

The ultimate question is, who will lead and who will follow?

Photo by Athena Sandrini

After the CFPB withdrew its lawsuit over Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the bureau stated that it would begin a new, “accelerated” rulemaking process with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) within three weeks. That three-week period ended last week, on August 22nd, when the CFPB published its Personal Financial Data Rights Reconsideration, effectively kicking off the new rulemaking process.

Much is riding on how this rule takes shape, not only for banks, but for fintechs and consumers alike. Visa’s recent move to abandon its US open banking initiatives underscores just how high the stakes are. In its latest release, the CFPB asked for comments and data to guide its decisions on four critical issues tied to Section 1033. Below, we’ll walk through each issue and explore the potential impact.

Representatives: who deserves access to the data?

The first of the four issues is defining who can serve as a representative on behalf of the consumer. The question essentially asks who can make a request to access the consumer’s data on their behalf. Today, this includes not only the consumer themselves, but also third-party aggregators and fintechs, as well. If the CFPB decides to narrow this scope, it could potentially block third-party services from accessing consumer data, limiting it to the consumer and the bank itself.

The latter would favor incumbents as it allows them ultimate control. For fintechs, this would create a risky environment. The uncertainty would make it risky to invest and build APIs that could be restricted in the future.

Fee structures: who pays for data access?

The second of the four issues seeks to determine the optimal amount of fees that banks should be able to charge in response to a customer-driven request. As a result, data access may no longer be free for aggregators, which may require them and fintechs to reshape their business models in response.

Charging for data would allow banks to recoup compliance costs for API access, but may receive negative attention from fintechs and consumers. Additionally, fintechs with already thin margins may be forced to look for an exit.

Data security: weighing threats vs. benefits

The third of the four issues the CFPB spotlighted is the threat and cost-benefit analysis for data security associated with complying with Section 1033. If the Bureau requires compliance with tighter security requirements, all stakeholders will feel the repercussions of tighter security expectations.

With tighter compliance, small fintechs that previously had limited compliance requirements may now need to step up to higher standards. This could ultimately lead to consolidation, since large, well-resourced firms would be able to more easily meet compliance.

Data privacy: the cost of protection

The final of the four issues the CFPB spotlighted is the threat landscape surrounding data privacy associated with Section 1033 compliance. The Bureau may set new limits on how fintechs are allowed to monetize consumer data in an effort to maintain their privacy.

With new guardrails on how they are allowed to monetize consumer data, fintechs may face limitations on using data for personalized marketing or other secondary data uses. As a result, innovation may slow down, but consumers may gain more confidence.

Your turn to comment!

The CFPB’s recent call for comments is more than regulatory housekeeping. It is highly consequential and will determine the future of open banking in the US. The Bureau’s questions signal real costs, risks, and opportunities.

It is important to make your voice heard on these issues! In the six days that the comment period opened, only seven comments have been submitted. Send your comments to the CFPB by October 10, 2025 at 11:59 pm EST.

Photo by Erik Mclean

Payments infrastructure company Stripe is moving into the blockchain, according to Forbes, which uncovered a job posting regarding the move. According to the posting, Stripe is planning to launch a payments blockchain called Tempo.

“Tempo is a high-performance, payments-focused blockchain,” the advertisement on the Blockchain Association’s website said. Here’s a look at five things that matter about Stripe’s move, including details about the new blockchain, why it’s launching it now, how it fits into the company’s strategy, what it means for the wider industry, and what’s still unknown.

What is Tempo?

Tempo is a Layer 1 blockchain built from the ground up (as opposed to a fork). A Layer 1 blockchain is the base network in a blockchain ecosystem. It serves as the foundational layer where transactions are processed, validated, and recorded. With Tempo, Stripe is optimizing the network for payments and making it compatible with Ethereum Solidity toolchains, meaning that developers can use the same set of familiar tools they use for Ethereum.

Tempo was built stealthily by a small team of around five people in partnership with crypto VC firm Paradigm. Until the job posting, which was dated August 3, the new project operated under the radar.

Why now? Stripe’s crypto build-out strategy

Launching its own blockchain is Stripe’s latest move into the crypto industry. Stripe has been steadily entering the crypto world, from its acquisition of stablecoin platform Bridge for $1.1 billion, to buying wallet developer Privy in June. Since then, Stripe has also made a non-crypto acquisition, acquiring payment orchestration company Orum in June. Launching Tempo will add the final piece of this equation. Owning its own blockchain rails will give Stripe full control of the payment flow, from the wallet to the payment settlement.

The benefits of building its own blockchain

As with all of its acquisitions, Stripe’s move to create a blockchain from scratch is strategic. Launching Tempo will offer it full-stack control, which will allow Stripe to optimize network speed, lower fees, and integrate with other stablecoins and wallets. Additionally, the custom payments blockchain could displace legacy systems like SWIFT or even FedNow, with faster, cheaper rails. And since Tempo will be compatible with Ethereum it is developer friendly, which means that it will not require new tools or talent to align with its infrastructure.

Bigger implications for payments & crypto

Stripe has been operating in the fintech arena since 2010. With its own blockchain, the company could accelerate mainstream adoption of stablecoins and blockchain payments via a merchant network. The move showcases how traditional fintechs are taking steps to operate in the crypto space. Not only this, but it is also indicative of a new competitive landscape in which fintechs control their own payments rails, disrupting traditional ecommerce and cross-border transactions.

What We Still Don’t Know

Even though it is interesting to speculate on the impacts Tempo will have across the industry, there is still a lot we do not know. Much of this is because the news originated from a job posting, not an official company announcement. Details such as whether Tempo will come with its own native token, how it will be governed, and a clear timeline for the launch are still unknown.

What is clear, however, is that it is worth keeping an eye on Stripe not just as a payments innovator, but also as a player in the crypto arena going forward.

The future of open banking in the US just hit another curve. Yesterday, July 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a surprise motion to pause the legal battle over its Section 1033 data access rule. The move, which comes the day that final arguments were due in the case, signals that the Bureau plans to rewrite the rule altogether, a dramatic shift that could reshape how financial data flows between banks, aggregators, and fintech apps.

Because this case is a rollercoaster, let’s start from the beginning. In the fall of 2024, the CFPB issued the final rulemaking on Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule, issued in the form of a 594-page document, aimed to enhance consumers’ rights, privacy, and security over their own personal financial data. Hours after the CFPB issued the rule, Forcht Bank, the Kentucky Bankers Association (KBA), and the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) filed suit, arguing that the CFPB overstepped its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. They later filed an amended complaint in November, and the CFPB responded in December.

Then, things got even more complicated. After the new administration placed new leadership over the CFPB early this year, both sides agreed to temporarily pause the case and delay the rule’s compliance deadlines. The court granted the pause and extended it again in March. Meanwhile, the Financial Technology Association (FTA), a group that represents fintechs and aggregators, was granted permission to join the case in May. All sides submitted their main arguments to the court at the end of May, and their responses to each other’s arguments were due by July 29, 2025.

The next interesting twist in the story came out yesterday, when the CFPB filed for a motion to “reconsider the rule with the view to substantially revising it and providing a robust justification” because of “recent events.” The recent event the Bureau is referring to is JPMorgan’s announcement to data aggregators that it plans to charge them a fee to access consumer data. This move has sparked multiple heated conversations over who owns consumer data and how many services banks should be expected to provide for free.

Many conversations highlighted the fact that the CFPB’s 1033 ruling stipulated that banks cannot charge third parties for data access. However, now that the CFPB has indicated it plans to revise the rule, some experts are wondering whether the agency is backing away from that stance. Critics fear the Bureau may soften the ban on data access fees in response to pressure from JPMorgan, the biggest bank in the world by market capitalization. Others argue that resetting the rule could allow for broader industry consensus and a more durable framework.

Either way, the move reopens a regulatory debate that many thought was settled. Now that you’re caught up, here are the four highlights of the CFPB’s latest motion:

1. Plans to rewrite the rule
   In its motion, the CFPB announced that it intends to throw out its current version of the Section 1033 rule and start fresh. The Bureau says it will kick off a new, “accelerated” rulemaking process with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) expected within three weeks. The CFPB has decided on a pivot. Rather than defending its original rule in court, the CFPB is acknowledging its change in leadership and “recent events in the marketplace” (which is very likely JPMorgan’s controversial move to charge data aggregators) as the reason it plans to take the rule back to the drawing board. A substantially revised rule could reshape the boundaries around consumer data access and fees.
2. Requests a pause
   The CFPB is asking the court to pause the current legal proceedings while it works on rewriting the rule. The Bureau reasons that if it is about to replace the rule that’s being challenged, then it doesn’t make sense for the court to keep spending time on the existing version.
3. Promises communication
   To assure the court that the motion isn’t a stall tactic, the CFPB is promising transparency throughout the rulemaking process. If the court grants the pause, the Bureau will submit status reports every 90 days to update the judge on its progress. This is meant to maintain communication with the court and demonstrate that the agency is moving swiftly.
4. Cites opposition
   In the motion, the CFPB acknowledges that not all parties are on board. The Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents data aggregators and fintech firms, does not oppose the pause. But the plaintiffs (Forcht Bank, the KBA, and the BPI), however, do oppose it. They plan to file a formal objection, likely arguing that the pause is a delay tactic and that the rule should be struck down based on the current legal merits.

What happens next will most certainly have ripple effects across the entire financial ecosystem. If the CFPB follows through on its promise to rewrite the rule, we could see a very different version of Section 1033, one potentially shaped by politics, institutional pressure, consumer rights, and innovation. At this point, it is clear that the future of open banking in the US is once again uncertain and very much up for debate.

Photo by Christian Wasserfallen