It has been only six months since brokers started connecting AI agents to their platforms, so expecting regulation to arrive already would be optimistic, if not premature. It is, however, brewing. The Bank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden, during a Q&A at the European Central Bank Forum in Portugal in June, noted that human-in-the-loop safeguards, where someone can review, approve or change the automated action, are unrealistic for the speed of agentic trading. <\/p>\n
Instead, among other things, they are thinking about kill switches and circuit breakers, tried-and-true safeguards in algorithmic trading. Until then, the question remains: Who pays when the agent goes rogue? <\/p>\n
No Clear Direction Yet<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reality is,\u201d says Nauman Anees, CEO and co-founder of ThinkMarkets, \u201cthere is no AI governance or rules and any would be difficult, to say the least, to implement and enforce.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nauman Anees, co-founder and CEO of ThinkMarkets<\/p>\n
The multi-regulated broker was an early mover, releasing Chelsea AI in June<\/a>. Chelsea is the plug-in that enables Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and so on, to take over a trader\u2019s brokerage account. Many have followed, including Robinhood, IG Group and eToro. <\/p>\n Most crucially, MetaQuotes and Spotware, which combined own most of the third-party infrastructure layer of the industry, have their own versions<\/a>. Spinning up these plug-ins has become easy. <\/p>\n In the EU, the clearest regulatory direction so far was a February supervisory Briefing by ESMA, which covered what it called \u201cAI-based algorithmic trading systems\u201d. <\/p>\n If they are AI systems, they will need to comply with the EU AI Act\u2019s requirements, which in itself is not exactly clear on agentic trading. For one, it does not have a separate category for agents. <\/p>\n Neither ESMA nor the Act have really wrapped their heads around it just yet. <\/p>\n It\u2019s worth mentioning that the UK\u2019s Financial Conduct Authority published the Mills Review in July<\/a>, which detailed how AI will reshape the financial services sector by 2030. Although the report explicitly discussed agentic AI and its potential to steer consumers’ financial choices, it did not have a direct reference to agentic trading.<\/p>\n Better Safe Than Sorry <\/p>\n The reality is that agentic trading is still young. It is messy, unpredictable and requires an adult. Recent contests involving public, real-money AI trading where leading models, from OpenAI to Alibaba, were tasked with trading equities, crypto and so on, most models lost money, traded too much and gave wildly different decisions even when given the same instructions. <\/p>\n It\u2019s no surprise regulators are struggling to put it in a box,<\/a> or that brokers have not given the agent the keys to the castle. <\/p>\n Robinhood released AI Agent Accounts<\/a> in July. In a month, out of some 14 million active users on the trading platform, it piqued the interest of at least 50,000.<\/p>\n In the first few weeks of agentic trading on Robinhood, over 50,000 customers have opened agentic trading accounts and are trading millions of dollars per day of equities and options.<\/p>\n Writing and executing sophisticated strategies or optimizing your everyday spending no longer\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Vlad Tenev (@vladtenev) June 18, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve built a number of safeguards to enable customers to limit the capital and assets the agent can access, give them visibility into their agent\u2019s actions and let them quickly disconnect the agent if anything looks off,\u201d a Robinhood spokesperson tells Finance Magnates. <\/p>\n Other safeguards include spending controls, limited account access, the ability to instantly disable the agents and fraud detection. <\/p>\n \u201cIf a trade or payment looks off, the company\u2019s support team can review exactly what you asked the agent to do, see what it actually did, and help you quickly resolve any disputes,\u201d Robinhood explains. <\/p>\n There is also a human-in-the-loop button for good measure; someone can opt in to manually approve every credit card purchase before it goes through. <\/p>\n \u201cWhen appropriate, agents will preview orders with customers whenever they ask to place a trade so customers can see all the details of the order before it\u2019s processed. But ultimately, customers are solely responsible for how the agents are built and any resulting actions the agents take,\u201d says the Robinhood spokesperson.<\/p>\n \u201cIf You Give the AI Agent Permission, You Are Responsible\u201d<\/p>\n Sophie Gerber, the co-founder and CEO of TRAction, an Australian regulatory reporting services company, echoes that sentiment. \u201cIf a retail trader wants to install an AI agent to do their trading with, I cannot see an issue with this,\u201d Gerber notes. \u201cHowever, the person who installed the AI agent to carry out trading is still going to be responsible for the conduct of that agent.\u201d <\/p>\n Someone can\u2019t cry foul just because they used an AI agent. \u201cIf you give the AI agent permission, you are responsible for its actions as though you did it yourself,\u201d Gerber adds.<\/p>\n Sophie Gerber, co-founder and CEO, TRAction<\/p>\n After all, even current regulatory frameworks don\u2019t guarantee trading performance. <\/p>\n Other brokers and platform providers<\/a> have also added their own safeguards, from carving out separate accounts to prohibiting access to wallets, all of which aim to do one thing: limit what the plug-in allows the trader to do. <\/p>\n One way to read these controls is that the industry expects, and rightfully so, that when the regulatory fence emerges, it will not be entirely privatised. <\/p>\n And current literature might have some clues as to how tall that fence will be. <\/p>\n When Are Brokers Liable? It\u2019s Complicated. <\/p>\n Christiana Aristidou, the founder and Managing Partner of the Hybrid LawTech Firm, explains that besides not having a separate category for agents, the AI Act does not classify AI-based algorithmic trading as a high-risk use case. <\/p>\n \u201cThis position, though,\u201d she warns, \u201cis not necessarily permanent.\u201d <\/p>\n If the level of market-wide damage proves to be high, there would be updates, tailored legislation, the works. One of the systemic risks that seems to bother regulators is herding behaviour<\/a>. Bank of England\u2019s Deputy Governor said as much in the conference; agents can follow each other and do the same thing at the same time much faster than any system before. <\/p>\n It\u2019s not an unfounded fear: From ten major brokers and platforms that have enabled MCPs, nine allow Claude<\/a>.<\/p>\n Then there is DORA, the extra steps Brussels forced financial firms to take against cyber threats. Aristidou says brokers would need to assess the MCP connector, agent-access layer and supporting vendors within the scope of the framework. <\/p>\n This might be less of a worry for now<\/a>, though, as regulators are being uncharacteristically patient with enforcement. <\/p>\n There are also market abuse considerations, particularly if an AI agent can generate manipulative trading patterns, or even the perception thereof, without being explicitly told to do so. <\/p>\n \u201cThe AI did it,\u201d says Aristidou, \u201cis not a defence to inadequate surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n Obligations Not Excluded <\/p>\n What it boils down to, Aristidou notes, is the controls on the agent. Some cases could fall under current algorithmic trading rules<\/a>, like when an agent is allowed to determine price, quantity, timing, order type or any other trading parameter.<\/p>\n Christiana Aristidou, founder and Managing Partner, The Hybrid LawTech Firm<\/p>\n The agent, though, is to algo what the smartphone is to the rotary phone; there are plenty of cases outside of what was understood about algorithmic trading. So, at the moment, most of that control will continue to fall squarely on the risk and engineering teams inside brokers and platforms. <\/p>\n This includes identifying the functions that are performed across the board, setting up pre-trade and real-time controls, stress-testing beyond algo to find misunderstood natural language prompts and making sure there\u2019s compliant execution. <\/p>\n The latter, she says, \u201cwill become particularly important where an agent favours products generating higher commission, payment for order flow spread revenue, token investment or other benefits for the platform.\u201d <\/p>\n There should also be clear-cut communication. <\/p>\n Know Your Agent<\/p>\n One common thread to shield against potential, and arguably inevitable, litigation is Terms & Conditions: explaining what the agent does, how it misbehaves, limits and kill mechanisms and so on. <\/p>\n These are strong enough, Gerber says, that it is \u201cvery unlikely, even based on current T&Cs, an AI agent’s trades can somehow not be considered valid trades.\u201d If and when a disputed scenario arises, you can expect those documents to change and account for it. <\/p>\n In case of litigation<\/a>, Aristidou says that the decisive question may not initially be who is liable, but whether anyone can reconstruct what happened. <\/p>\n To be defensible, a system would then need to maintain the full chain of decision-making and execution: the user\u2019s original mandate, data and context supplied, broker-side controls, warnings, blocks, overnights and so on. Can everyone involved reliably prove the authority of the agent, which version acted, what controls were applied and the conduct departed from the authorised mandate? <\/p>\n \u201cThis is more than conventional explainability. It is decision provenance and evidential integrity,\u201d she says. <\/p>\n Aristidou predicts that legislation might borrow a few things from Web3 principles, like tamper-evident logs, cryptographic attestations and verifiable agent credentials. \u201cIt will become a normal part of financial-market infrastructure,\u201d she expects. <\/p>\n So, Know Your Agent will be next to Know Your Customer. <\/p>\n Inevitably, that would lift the control off the companies\u2019 shoulders. In exchange, it would add compliance costs.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Days of Staring at the Charts Are Going Away\u201d<\/p>\n According to Anees, most people now use ThinkMarket\u2019s Chelsea AI for analysis and research, but there\u2019s been an uptick in generated trading volume. He expects it to grow. More so, he believes anyone who doesn\u2019t adapt<\/a> now will be faced with siloed systems and a dramatically lower market for users. They would be left behind. <\/p>\n \u201cThe days of staring at the charts are going away,\u201d Anees says. <\/p>\n For how many traders this will be true remains to be seen. The future could be hybrid, where traders continue to use AI agents for research and analysis but don\u2019t completely upend the way they interact with the markets.<\/p>\n It could also come to pass that agentic trading is strong enough to swallow the market. Brussels, London and their peers would then classify agents as a major threat and the cost will be proportional, or disproportional, depending on which side of compliance you are on. <\/p>\n Aristidou expects that in agentic finance, responsibility will increasingly follow capability, control and the ability to prevent harm, not the software or the protocol. If that\u2019s the case, the regulatory noose will be tight enough that it could stifle. <\/p>\n At the end of the day, the ultimate question might not even be who to blame, but how much blame would cost. <\/p>\n It has been only six months since brokers started connecting AI agents to their platforms, so expecting regulation to arrive already would be optimistic, if not premature. It is, however, brewing. The Bank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden, during a Q&A at the European Central Bank Forum in Portugal in June, noted that human-in-the-loop safeguards, where someone can review, approve or change the automated action, are unrealistic for the speed of agentic trading. <\/p>\n Instead, among other things, they are thinking about kill switches and circuit breakers, tried-and-true safeguards in algorithmic trading. Until then, the question remains: Who pays when the agent goes rogue? <\/p>\n No Clear Direction Yet<\/p>\n \u201cThe reality is,\u201d says Nauman Anees, CEO and co-founder of ThinkMarkets, \u201cthere is no AI governance or rules and any would be difficult, to say the least, to implement and enforce.\u201d<\/p>\n Nauman Anees, co-founder and CEO of ThinkMarkets<\/p>\n The multi-regulated broker was an early mover, releasing Chelsea AI in June<\/a>. Chelsea is the plug-in that enables Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and so on, to take over a trader\u2019s brokerage account. Many have followed, including Robinhood, IG Group and eToro. <\/p>\n Most crucially, MetaQuotes and Spotware, which combined own most of the third-party infrastructure layer of the industry, have their own versions<\/a>. Spinning up these plug-ins has become easy. <\/p>\n In the EU, the clearest regulatory direction so far was a February supervisory Briefing by ESMA, which covered what it called \u201cAI-based algorithmic trading systems\u201d. <\/p>\n If they are AI systems, they will need to comply with the EU AI Act\u2019s requirements, which in itself is not exactly clear on agentic trading. For one, it does not have a separate category for agents. <\/p>\n Neither ESMA nor the Act have really wrapped their heads around it just yet. <\/p>\n It\u2019s worth mentioning that the UK\u2019s Financial Conduct Authority published the Mills Review in July<\/a>, which detailed how AI will reshape the financial services sector by 2030. Although the report explicitly discussed agentic AI and its potential to steer consumers’ financial choices, it did not have a direct reference to agentic trading.<\/p>\n Better Safe Than Sorry <\/p>\n The reality is that agentic trading is still young. It is messy, unpredictable and requires an adult. Recent contests involving public, real-money AI trading where leading models, from OpenAI to Alibaba, were tasked with trading equities, crypto and so on, most models lost money, traded too much and gave wildly different decisions even when given the same instructions. <\/p>\n It\u2019s no surprise regulators are struggling to put it in a box,<\/a> or that brokers have not given the agent the keys to the castle. <\/p>\n Robinhood released AI Agent Accounts<\/a> in July. In a month, out of some 14 million active users on the trading platform, it piqued the interest of at least 50,000.<\/p>\n In the first few weeks of agentic trading on Robinhood, over 50,000 customers have opened agentic trading accounts and are trading millions of dollars per day of equities and options.<\/p>\n Writing and executing sophisticated strategies or optimizing your everyday spending no longer\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Vlad Tenev (@vladtenev) June 18, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve built a number of safeguards to enable customers to limit the capital and assets the agent can access, give them visibility into their agent\u2019s actions and let them quickly disconnect the agent if anything looks off,\u201d a Robinhood spokesperson tells Finance Magnates. <\/p>\n Other safeguards include spending controls, limited account access, the ability to instantly disable the agents and fraud detection. <\/p>\n \u201cIf a trade or payment looks off, the company\u2019s support team can review exactly what you asked the agent to do, see what it actually did, and help you quickly resolve any disputes,\u201d Robinhood explains. <\/p>\n There is also a human-in-the-loop button for good measure; someone can opt in to manually approve every credit card purchase before it goes through. <\/p>\n \u201cWhen appropriate, agents will preview orders with customers whenever they ask to place a trade so customers can see all the details of the order before it\u2019s processed. But ultimately, customers are solely responsible for how the agents are built and any resulting actions the agents take,\u201d says the Robinhood spokesperson.<\/p>\n \u201cIf You Give the AI Agent Permission, You Are Responsible\u201d<\/p>\n Sophie Gerber, the co-founder and CEO of TRAction, an Australian regulatory reporting services company, echoes that sentiment. \u201cIf a retail trader wants to install an AI agent to do their trading with, I cannot see an issue with this,\u201d Gerber notes. \u201cHowever, the person who installed the AI agent to carry out trading is still going to be responsible for the conduct of that agent.\u201d <\/p>\n Someone can\u2019t cry foul just because they used an AI agent. \u201cIf you give the AI agent permission, you are responsible for its actions as though you did it yourself,\u201d Gerber adds.<\/p>\n Sophie Gerber, co-founder and CEO, TRAction<\/p>\n After all, even current regulatory frameworks don\u2019t guarantee trading performance. <\/p>\n Other brokers and platform providers<\/a> have also added their own safeguards, from carving out separate accounts to prohibiting access to wallets, all of which aim to do one thing: limit what the plug-in allows the trader to do. <\/p>\n One way to read these controls is that the industry expects, and rightfully so, that when the regulatory fence emerges, it will not be entirely privatised. <\/p>\n And current literature might have some clues as to how tall that fence will be. <\/p>\n When Are Brokers Liable? It\u2019s Complicated. <\/p>\n Christiana Aristidou, the founder and Managing Partner of the Hybrid LawTech Firm, explains that besides not having a separate category for agents, the AI Act does not classify AI-based algorithmic trading as a high-risk use case. <\/p>\n \u201cThis position, though,\u201d she warns, \u201cis not necessarily permanent.\u201d <\/p>\n If the level of market-wide damage proves to be high, there would be updates, tailored legislation, the works. One of the systemic risks that seems to bother regulators is herding behaviour<\/a>. Bank of England\u2019s Deputy Governor said as much in the conference; agents can follow each other and do the same thing at the same time much faster than any system before. <\/p>\n It\u2019s not an unfounded fear: From ten major brokers and platforms that have enabled MCPs, nine allow Claude<\/a>.<\/p>\n Then there is DORA, the extra steps Brussels forced financial firms to take against cyber threats. Aristidou says brokers would need to assess the MCP connector, agent-access layer and supporting vendors within the scope of the framework. <\/p>\n This might be less of a worry for now<\/a>, though, as regulators are being uncharacteristically patient with enforcement. <\/p>\n There are also market abuse considerations, particularly if an AI agent can generate manipulative trading patterns, or even the perception thereof, without being explicitly told to do so. <\/p>\n \u201cThe AI did it,\u201d says Aristidou, \u201cis not a defence to inadequate surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n Obligations Not Excluded <\/p>\n What it boils down to, Aristidou notes, is the controls on the agent. Some cases could fall under current algorithmic trading rules<\/a>, like when an agent is allowed to determine price, quantity, timing, order type or any other trading parameter.<\/p>\n Christiana Aristidou, founder and Managing Partner, The Hybrid LawTech Firm<\/p>\n The agent, though, is to algo what the smartphone is to the rotary phone; there are plenty of cases outside of what was understood about algorithmic trading. So, at the moment, most of that control will continue to fall squarely on the risk and engineering teams inside brokers and platforms. <\/p>\n This includes identifying the functions that are performed across the board, setting up pre-trade and real-time controls, stress-testing beyond algo to find misunderstood natural language prompts and making sure there\u2019s compliant execution. <\/p>\n The latter, she says, \u201cwill become particularly important where an agent favours products generating higher commission, payment for order flow spread revenue, token investment or other benefits for the platform.\u201d <\/p>\n There should also be clear-cut communication. <\/p>\n Know Your Agent<\/p>\n One common thread to shield against potential, and arguably inevitable, litigation is Terms & Conditions: explaining what the agent does, how it misbehaves, limits and kill mechanisms and so on. <\/p>\n These are strong enough, Gerber says, that it is \u201cvery unlikely, even based on current T&Cs, an AI agent’s trades can somehow not be considered valid trades.\u201d If and when a disputed scenario arises, you can expect those documents to change and account for it. <\/p>\n