From consent to mandate: why a login is not authority to pay
Authenticating a customer proves who they are, not what an agent may do for them. A mandate states the action, amount, payee and time window, and travels with the request.
Transcript
- Nora
Hi! This is Two Minutes of Agentic Finance, from AgenticOpenFinance™. I'm Nora, here with Theo.
- Theo
Hello everyone!
- Nora
Theo, if a customer is logged in and their agent works inside that session, is that enough authority to pay?
- Theo
No. Logging in proves who the customer is. It says nothing about what an agent may do for them, how much it may spend, or until when.
- Nora
But the customer could make that payment themselves. Why is it different for the agent?
- Theo
Because payment law ties authorisation to consent for a payment, in the agreed form. An open session is not consent to every payment an agent might decide to make.
- Nora
So what should the agent carry instead?
- Theo
A mandate. It names the action, the limits, the payee or merchant, and the time window. It can travel in an OAuth token or as a signed credential, as in the Agent Payments Protocol.
- Nora
And who actually checks it?
- Theo
Whoever executes the action: the bank, the payment provider or the merchant. They compare the request with the mandate and refuse anything outside it, without relying on the agent.
- Nora
The written version and the details are on the AgenticOpenFinance™ blog.
- Theo
Our voices were made with AI. See you next week, bye!