aiqbench analysis
This research reveals how system prompt instructions defining an AI agent's principal—whether the consumer or the platform—directly alter its susceptibility to sponsorship bias in commercial settings. The study demonstrates that merely disclosing paid placements is insufficient when the model is explicitly delegated by the advertising platform, as this role assignment suppresses skepticism and reduces penalties for sponsored content. These findings highlight a critical gap between current regulatory frameworks designed for human users and the behavioral realities of AI-mediated commerce.
Whom Do AI Agents Work For? Role Assignment Induces Sponsorship Bias in LLM Recommenders
arXiv:2609.17989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now serve as conversational shopping assistants on platforms that also sell advertising. These AI agents face a conflict of duty. They advise consumers who rely on their judgment, yet are deployed by platforms that benefit when sponsored listings are chosen. Sponsorship disclosures, designed to allow consumers to penalize paid placements, now reach the AI agent rather than the consumer, and the agent's evaluation of them is hidden from the consumer. Drawing on the fiduciary concept of conflict of duty, we argue that an agent's evaluation of a sponsored listing should not depend on which party deployed it. In controlled choice experiments, we manipulate assigned roles in the system prompt to name either a traveler or a booking platform as the agent's principal. Platform delegation significantly attenuates the penalty that agents apply to sponsored listings and weakens the skepticism that disclosure triggers in their reasoning traces. We replicate out findings across LLMs and reasoning depths. A second study decomposes the disclosure label and shows that the divergence between the two delegates widens significantly when the paid placement is attributed to the platform. Stricter terminology ("Sponsored" instead of "Promoted") lowers choice of paid listings but does not close this gap when the platform is named. The findings show that disclosure mandates designed for human consumers cannot by themselves protect consumers in AI-mediated commerce.
Title:Whom Do AI Agents Work For? Role Assignment Induces Sponsorship Bias in LLM Recommenders
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) now serve as conversational shopping assistants on platforms that also sell advertising. These AI agents face a conflict of duty. They advise consumers who rely on their judgment, yet are deployed by platforms that benefit when sponsored listings are chosen. Sponsorship disclosures, designed to allow consumers to penalize paid placements, now reach the AI agent rather than the consumer, and the agent's evaluation of them is hidden from the consumer. Drawing on the fiduciary concept of conflict of duty, we argue that an agent's evaluation of a sponsored listing should not depend on which party deployed it. In controlled choice experiments, we manipulate assigned roles in the system prompt to name either a traveler or a booking platform as the agent's principal. Platform delegation significantly attenuates the penalty that agents apply to sponsored listings and weakens the skepticism that disclosure triggers in their reasoning traces. We replicate out findings across LLMs and reasoning depths. A second study decomposes the disclosure label and shows that the divergence between the two delegates widens significantly when the paid placement is attributed to the platform. Stricter terminology ("Sponsored" instead of "Promoted") lowers choice of paid listings but does not close this gap when the platform is named. The findings show that disclosure mandates designed for human consumers cannot by themselves protect consumers in AI-mediated commerce.
General Economics (econ.GN); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.17989 [econ.GN]
(or arXiv:2609.17989v1 [econ.GN] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.17989 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 336 words
Related coverage

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 31, 2026

Social Theory and Agent Foundations
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026