News
The enterprise technology industry has a peculiar relationship with accountability. When it comes to cloud uptime, latency, and data security, we expect contractual guarantees, SLAs, and clearly defined remedies. But when it comes to AI-generated outputs, the actual content these systems produce, we've quietly accepted a different standard: best effort.
I've spent years in commercial and operational roles at companies like Gap, Amazon, and Door Dash / Wolt. In every one of those environments, product visuals weren't a marketing nice-to-have. They were infrastructure. A wrong color on a listing didn't just look bad; it drove returns. A missing ingredient on a food image wasn't an aesthetic issue; it was a trust issue that compounded at scale and was dangerous to our customers.
So when AI-generated images started entering enterprise workflows in earnest, I watched with real interest. The efficiency gains were compelling: the ability to generate, retouch, and adapt product visuals at a speed and scale that traditional studio workflows simply cannot match.
But something fundamental was missing from the enterprise conversation: accountability for outputs.
The gap between impressive and dependableThere's a difference between AI that produces impressive results in demos and AI tools you can stake commercial operations on. For enterprise buyers, that gap matters enormously.
Consider what happens when am AI-generated product image fails at volume. A wrong product color in a hero image doesn't trigger one return; it triggers thousands. A distorted shape on a fashion listing doesn't affect one conversion; it affects an entire category. The commercial exposure from visual inaccuracy compounds at scale in a way that individual errors simply don't.
Yet for most of the AI visual tools currently available to enterprise buyers, the contractual position on this exposure is essentially zero. You buy credits, you run images, and what comes out is what you get. If the output doesn't match the brief, you absorb the cost: in regeneration time, in quality control overhead, and ultimately in the downstream commercial impact of content that doesn't perform.
This isn't an indictment of the technology. AI-generated images have genuinely transformed what's operationally possible for enterprise visual production. But the commercial model hasn't kept up with the commercial reality.
Why ownership changes everythingThe reason most AI visual vendors can't offer meaningful output guarantees isn't reluctance; it's architecture. If you're building on third-party foundation models, you have no ability to evaluate, course-correct, or stand behind the quality of what those models produce at the output level. The accountability stops at the API.
The vendors who can make guarantees are the ones who own the full stack: the generation models, the evaluation models, and the remediation process. This is the structural distinction that makes contractual guarantees viable, not as a commercial gesture, but as something that can actually be operationalized.
When a proprietary fidelity evaluation model is running on every output before delivery, you have a mechanism for identifying failures before the client does. When you own the rater, the fixer, and the generation pipeline, you have the ability to correct those failures.
When you've run a feasibility check on a customer's actual catalogue before any commercial commitment, you know what the pass rate will look like in production.
That's the architecture that makes a guarantee meaningful: not a promise, but an auditable process with contractual teeth.
What contractual accountability looks like in practiceThe mechanics matter here, because "guarantee" can mean many things. In practice, an enterprise visual guarantee should do three things: define pass/fail criteria upfront based on the customer's actual brief; evaluate every output against those criteria before delivery; and trigger a clear remedy, regeneration or credit refund, when failures occur.
Critically, the criteria need to be specific. Product fidelity failures, an altered color, a missing ingredient, a distorted product shape, are measurable and contractually defensible. Subjective aesthetic preferences, a lighting angle, a background tone, are not. The boundary between these two things is where a real guarantee lives, and where vague commitments fall apart.
For enterprise buyers, this specificity is valuable in itself. It forces the conversation about what "quality" actually means for a given catalogue before procurement, rather than after. That clarity typically improves outcomes on both sides.
The accountability moment for enterprise AIWe're at a point in the enterprise AI cycle where the conversation needs to shift from what these systems can do to what vendors are willing to stand behind. Capability is no longer the differentiator; the market is full of capable tools. Dependability is.
For enterprise procurement teams, this means starting to ask harder questions. Not just "what's your accuracy rate?" but "what happens when it's wrong, and what are the contractual terms?" Not just "can you handle our volume?" but "what remedies apply when you don't meet the standard we've agreed?"
For the vendor community, it means recognising that the era of best-effort AI in enterprise contexts is ending. Buyers who are running tens of thousands of product images through AI pipelines need the same accountability from those systems that they expect from any other mission-critical infrastructure.
The goal in commerce was never the most beautiful image. It was always an image that sells, reliably, accurately, at scale. Enterprise AI that can guarantee that outcome is the next competitive frontier. The vendors willing to back their outputs contractually are the ones that will earn a place in enterprise infrastructure for the long term.
We've featured the best AI website builder.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
- HP India has been fined 1.42 billion rupees ($14.7 million) for two separate cases
- Self-reporting ultimately landed it with lighter fines
- Both cases relate to government tender manipulation between 2017 and 2020
India's Competition Commission (CCI) has accused HP India and some related resellers of coordinating bids for Indian government contracts on the Government e-Marketplace.
According to the CCI, the company and certain partners manipulated government tenders by predetermined or communicated bid prices, submitting deliberately uncompetitive bids to create the appearance of competition and controlling discounts.
The regulator revealed two separate cases for investigation – one relating to PCs, and the other relating to printing consumables like ink and toner.
HP accused of manufacturing bids to win Indian government contractsIn the printing case, the CCI uncovered emails, witness statements, WhatsApp group conversations and even a 2019 video from a reseller meeting. Discussions around which companies would submit supporting bids, prices and discounts, and which reseller should win particular contracts were found.
The CCI declared that a total of 16 Tier-2 resellers had violated its Competition Act through bid rigging, with HP India fined 119.8 million rupees and its resellers fined a combined total of 23 million rupees.
A separate case revealed similar conduct covering laptops, desktops, workstations, POS systems, peripherals and more. Similarly, five additional resellers were highlighted on top of HP India's core businesses, bringing this case's fines total to 1.3 billion rupees and 12.2 million rupees respectively.
The CCI's final orders bring HP India's total fines to around 1.42 billion rupees, or $14.7 million, excluding the fines imposed on its partners.
But the fine could have been a lot worse had HP India not come forward and admitted to its wrongdoing between 2017 and 2020, having submitted a lesser-penalty application to buy itself a discount on the fines.
TechRadar Pro has asked HP for a comment, but we did not receive an immediate response.
The UK's payment landscape is undergoing a rapid transformation. While regulatory initiatives, such as the mandatory authorized push payment (APP) reimbursement scheme, provide safeguards, sophisticated cyber-attacks and elaborate scams relentlessly evolve.
To reduce fraud, strong data-sharing frameworks and collaboration across the financial services industry are essential. Collaboration between big tech, telecoms, banks and the public sector can help combat fraud through a joined-up approach to data-sharing aimed at driving out scammers and identifying potentially fraudulent transactions.
Current landscapeThe scale of UK fraud is stark, with losses reaching £1.28 billion in 2025, a 4% increase year-on-year. Fraud is now operating on an industrial scale, with criminals using increasingly advanced tools and techniques to target victims. Fraud increasingly funds serious and organized crime in the UK and globally, reinforcing its status as a national security threat.
Authorized Push Payment (APP) fraud is a growing area of concern – this type of fraud continues to rise, with 248,070 cases recorded in 2025 (up 7%), showing that fraudsters are consistently adapting, pivoting to exploit new vulnerabilities, even as defenses strengthen. New scams have focused on investment, purchase-related, advance fee, invoice, and mandate scams as well as romance and impersonation scams.
Total losses from APP fraud rose sharply to £576.4 million (up 19%). This reflects a clear shift in criminal behavior, from exploiting systems to manipulating people through increasingly sophisticated social engineering.
Purchase scams made up 71% of all APP cases, demonstrating the scale and diversity of modern fraud tactics. This impact extends beyond financial loss, affecting individual livelihoods, disrupting businesses, and undermining national economic confidence.
Crucially, most APP fraud now originates outside the banking system. 66% of cases begin online (accounting for 32% of losses) and 17% via telecommunications networks, highlighting the growing role of digital platforms and telecoms in enabling fraud. Criminals are no longer primarily hacking systems; they are manipulating people, using sophisticated social engineering to bypass even the strongest technical controls.
Key considerations for the payments industryTackling these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, combining robust technology, seamless collaboration to enable effective and compliant data-sharing, effective regulation, and public awareness. Key considerations are:
What does government strategy mean in practice?Initiatives, such as the Government Fraud Strategy, provide an important framework for government, law enforcement, and the private sector. Infrastructure and data-sharing initiatives need to be effective, compliant, and aligned with national priorities to disrupt and prevent fraud. This ensures the fight against fraud remains a national priority that continuously adapts.
New data-sharing initiatives with Faster Payment System participants can play a key role here. Pay.UK’s work with participants on Enhanced Data Exchange (EDEx) will facilitate secure, timely data-sharing to empower financial institutions to detect and prevent fraudulent payments before they happen.
While still in development, its principles will complement the FCA’s APP fraud guidance and the Home Office’s Data Strategy ambitions: to enable secure, proportionate information exchange that helps prevent fraud before funds leave the system.
How can the industry continue to build cross-sector collaboration?Cross-sector intelligence sharing and advanced data analytics are increasingly vital. Real-time, secure data exchange illuminates patterns, identifies emerging threats, and enables proactive intervention before attacks occur. When combined with strong governance and clear accountability, this kind of collaboration shifts fraud defense from isolated warning signs to a coordinated, system‑wide response.
Confirmation of Payee significantly reduces misdirected payments and various APP fraud types such as impersonation and invoice scams. It's a vital, preventative layer of security before funds are transferred. It has implications beyond its intended purpose and has strongly influenced the development of Verification of Payee in Europe.
There is a growing call for greater enforceable responsibilities for technology platforms and telecommunications providers, not only to prevent fraud at source, but also to contribute financially and operationally to combating it.
How can the industry empower and educate end users?Beyond technology and industry collaboration, fraud prevention has a vital human dimension. Educating and empowering end users remain central – recognizing the warning signs of a scam is still one of the strongest protections available. But education alone is not enough. Consumers also need better information at the moment a decision is made.
It’s encouraging to see that, as a payments community, we are already building richer data-sharing across the ecosystem to provide clearer, more relevant context when prompting customers to pause before making a payment. Banks are moving beyond generic warnings, providing genuinely useful guidance and strengthening the point of payment as a powerful, collective line of defense.
The APP reimbursement scheme is a significant consumer protection funded by UK banks. Data from the PSR shows that £215 million was reimbursed to victims of APP fraud in 2025 alone. Across the first 15 months of the scheme (October 2024 to December 2025), 89% of the money lost to APP scams has been successfully claimed back from a payment firm and returned to victims.
While not a direct comparison, this is a significant uptick from the 65% reimbursement rate reported by UK Finance for personal accounts in 2024. Providing a safety net of up to £85,000 for victims, this scheme offers a clear recovery mechanism and brings more consistency for customers than the previous voluntary Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) Code.
Further, the scheme continues to evolve in line with the shifting payment landscape. The PSR has appointed Frontier Economics to carry out an independent evaluation and review of the APP fraud policies, the results of which are due to be published in the second half of 2026.
These findings, which look at the current effectiveness of the policies, fraud performance reporting and the reimbursement requirement, will influence the future of APP fraud prevention strategies and regulatory requirements, ensuring the creation of safe and trusted payment infrastructure
The battle against payment fraud is ongoing, demanding constant vigilance and strategic adaptation. While the digital age has transformed how we transact, it has also presented fraudsters with new avenues for exploitation. Yet, as outlined, it is a battle we are actively and collectively winning.
By embracing a multi-faceted approach, combining robust technological defenses, seamless industry collaboration, effective regulatory frameworks, and comprehensive public awareness, we are building a formidable shield against these threats.
We've featured the best billing and invoicing software.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
In May, WordPress shipped the most consequential release in its history. Version 7.0 brought AI into the core of the CMS platform for the first time, and the people who built it made a choice that's easy to miss in all the noise about the feature itself. They left it switched off.
The infrastructure is in the codebase, but nothing reaches an AI service until the site owner connects a provider and turns it on. Upgrade a site and walk away, and it behaves exactly as it did the day before.
The on-switch was handed to the person who owns the site, not flipped on their behalf.
It's worth sitting with how deliberate that was. The team had just shipped the most powerful capability the platform has ever carried, and the posture they chose for it was opt-in, plugin-based, with nothing injected into anyone's site automatically.
In an industry that loves a sensible default, that restraint was itself a statement: this decision is yours to make.
Then the more interesting thing happened.
A reasonable instinct, taken one step too farWithin days of the release, SiteGround, one of the most established managed WordPress hosting companies in the business, did close to the opposite. It pre-installed and activated its own AI product across its customer base, configured it as the default connector, and bundled in a generous allowance of free usage to get people going.
The active-install count crossed a million almost immediately. Plenty of site owners logged in to find capable new software already running on sites they had never touched to put it there.
I want to be fair to SiteGround here, because fairness is where the useful lesson lives. This is a serious operator with a long, well-earned reputation, and the product it built is genuinely good, a real piece of engineering rather than a thin upsell. The reasoning behind the rollout isn't hard to reconstruct either.
The "correct" path to native AI is fiddly, and most people would stall somewhere in the middle and never finish it. Pre-installing the whole thing, free usage attached, removes that friction in a single stroke. From an operator's chair, that's a tempting piece of customer service, and I've sat in that chair for the better part of two decades. I understand the pull of it completely.
So this isn't a story about a company behaving badly. It's a story about a reasonable instinct (reduce friction, help the customer get to the good part faster) carried one step past the line. And the reaction told us exactly where that line is.
The objection wasn't AI. It was consent.
The pushbackThe pushback was quick and pointed, and the striking thing about it was its subject. Almost none of it was about whether AI belongs in WordPress, or whether the tool was any good. Many of the people objecting use AI every day. What they objected to was finding it already switched on.
That distinction matters more than it first appears, because it separates two things the industry tends to blur: the quality of a change, and the consent to it. A genuinely good feature, installed without asking, still lands as something done to you rather than for you.
The standard defense (it's optional, you can remove it whenever you like) is all true, and none of it is the same as agreement. "We switched it on and you can switch it off" quietly moves the work of noticing, understanding, and undoing onto the customer, for a change they never approved. "Here's one-click setup if you'd like it" delivers the identical convenience and leaves the decision where it belongs.
This isn't a new tension. Webhosting companies have always made changes customers never see, and most of the time they're glad we do. But AI is going to surface this question over and over, because it's the most consequential thing most of us will ever be tempted to switch on by default. Getting the principle right now, while the stakes are still mostly reputational, is a lot cheaper than getting it wrong later.
The line worth holdingThe honest objection to all of this is that hosts intervene on customer sites all the time, and nobody asks permission for that. True, and the distinction is the whole point.
When a host patches a vulnerability, blocks a malicious request, or disables a plugin that's being actively exploited, it's protecting the customer's site and the wider platform from harm. Customers extend us that trust precisely because it's defensive, narrow, and in their interest. Installing a new product is a different category of act.
It isn't protecting anything; it's changing what the website is. The trouble starts when the second borrows the permission we were granted for the first, when goodwill extended for security work quietly gets spent on shipping features. That's the line. Maintain the platform freely; change the product only with a yes.
Holding it doesn't mean making customers do more work. New capabilities can arrive off by default and one click away for anyone who wants them. Multi-site managers can get a single place to see and control what's running, rather than a hunt site by site.
Anything a host pushes can be pulled back as easily as it went out. And changes can be announced in plain language before they happen, including how to say no, because the absence of a clear, opt-out-inclusive heads-up is usually what turns an ordinary product decision into a breach of trust.
Parts of the ecosystem are already moving this way. None of it is anti-AI. If anything, it's what lets hosts lean into AI confidently, because customers can trust that nothing shows up uninvited.
Whose site is it, anyway?As AI moves from novelty to default across the web, every host will face its own version of this question. Here's a genuinely useful new capability. Do we switch it on for everyone, or do we let people choose? The convenient answer and the right answer won't always be the same one, and the gap between them is where reputations are quietly made or lost.
It helps to remember who actually lives with the answer. When a host changes something on a site, the host moves on to the next ticket. The owner is the one who stays: the one whose visitor hits a page that behaves differently than it did the day before, whose inbox fills up when something looks off, whose name is on the business the site exists to represent. We get to make the change. They have to live with it. That asymmetry, more than anything written into the terms of service, is the real reason asking first isn't a nicety. It's an acknowledgement that the consequences were never ours to carry in the first place.
The site owners who pushed back this spring weren't standing against progress. Most of them, I'd wager, will happily adopt the very tooling they objected to, the moment they get to be the ones who switch it on. They were defending something simple that's easy to lose sight of when the technology is moving this fast: it's their site. Not the site we host for them. Theirs. A host's authority runs right up to the edge of the customer's ownership and stops there, and the best operators I've worked alongside never needed reminding of it. They saw their role as stewardship rather than possession.
That trust is the real product. Not the servers, not the dashboard, not even the support, though every bit of it matters. What a customer is buying is the confidence that nothing happens to their site that they didn't choose, and that when we do step in uninvited, it's to protect what's theirs and never to quietly redraw it. Trust like that takes years to earn and an afternoon to spend. Asking first is simply how you keep from spending it.
Get the boundary right, and AI in hosting becomes exactly what it should be: useful, and genuinely welcome. Get it wrong, and even the best feature in the world arrives as something taken rather than offered. The difference was never the technology. It was only ever whether anyone thought to ask.
We tested, reviewed, and rated the best website builders.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
If you're shopping for a new phone but aren't sold on the usual Apple, Samsung, or Google options, this deal on the Nothing Phone (3) is well worth a look.
Right now, it's down to $599 (was $799) at Amazon, which is extremely close to the record-low price we saw over Prime Day just a few weeks ago. The device briefly hit $584, but this is the next best price I've seen.
On paper, the Nothing Phone (3) packs plenty of flagship-worthy hardware, including a Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 chipset, a versatile quad 50MP camera system, and a sharp 6.67-inch AMOLED display with a smooth 120Hz refresh rate. It doesn't quite match the Galaxy S26 in outright performance, but that's arguably beside the point.
Nothing has built its reputation on offering something genuinely different, with a bold industrial aesthetic and a clean, distinctive take on Android that stands apart from the competition. Combined with this record-low price, the Phone (3) makes a compelling alternative to more conventional flagship devices like the Galaxy S26 or Google Pixel 10.
Nothing Phone (3) on sale at Amazon todayNothing's latest flagship device has just tumbled down to $599 — a price that's just $15 away from the record-low during Amazon Prime Day. With an incredibly eye-catching (and fresh) design, powerful Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 chipset, and Quad 50MP camera array, the Phone (3) is a fantastic alternative choice to the big Android names — particularly at this price.View Deal
Is the Nothing Phone (3) still worth it in 2026?(Image credit: Blue Pixl Media)When we reviewed the Nothing Phone (3) at TechRadar, we came away impressed by its distinctive design, solid hardware, and polished software experience. Our biggest criticism was its launch price, which put it in direct competition with flagship phones from Samsung and Apple. That made it a tougher recommendation unless you were looking for something really different.
With today's discount, however, the Phone (3) is a more tempting option. While the Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 chipset doesn't quite match the raw performance of the Galaxy S26, it's still more than capable for everyday use and remains a strong performer by 2026 standards.
In terms of specs, the Nothing Phone (3) holds up well, with a vibrant 6.67-inch 120Hz AMOLED display, long battery life backed by fast charging, and a versatile quad-camera setup built around four 50MP sensors.
In our testing, the hardware consistently produced impressive images, although we'd still give the edge to Apple and Google when it comes to cutting-edge image processing. Still, for most people, the Phone (3) is still an excellent camera phone.
Of course, specs have never been the main reason to buy a Nothing phone. The real appeal is its distinctive love-it-or-hate-it design. It's very different from the usual iPhone or Galaxy look, and the brand has also carried the industrial design through to its software with its own re-skinned version of Android.
- Market research firm Newzoo reports that Grand Theft Auto 6 has "the strongest pre-order campaign ever recorded"
- The game earned roughly $180 million in digital pre-order sales across the US and the five largest European markets during the last week of June
- It's estimated GTA 6 will achieve $3.3 - $5.2 billion in cumulative global sales by the end of launch week
Grand Theft Auto 6 reportedly achieved the strongest pre-order period ever and is on track to earn over $5 billion by the end of its launch week.
That's according to video game market research firm Newzoo, which released a new analysis reporting that the upcoming Rockstar title earned roughly $180 million in digital pre-order sales across the US and the five largest European markets during the last week of June.
These markets represent 69% of lifetime console players for GTA 5, which Newzoo used as a guide to estimate that the total global spend was around $260 million in the first week of pre-orders, concluding that this "kicks off the strongest pre-order campaign ever recorded."
"That is a massive sum with major implications for how GTA 6's total sales should be forecast," the firm said. "Placed on the sales curve GTA 6 is likely to follow, that puts it on pace for $3.3 - $5.2 billion in cumulative global sales by the end of launch week."
The report states that popular titles, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and GTA 6, follow three sales curves: the "brand-new IP," the "sequel with performance uncertainty," and "the proven sequel - a known quantity." GTA 6 "will most closely resemble the proven sequel curve," and will see linear growth as we get closer to release, with Newzoo predicting that the first-week pre-order sales account for roughly 5.8% of the total sales by the end of the game’s launch week.
With this being said, the firm believes GTA 6 could reach $4.5 billion in sales by the end of its first week on sale, which is roughly 51 million copies sold.
GTA 6 is the most anticipated game of all time, but it Newzoo noted that, contrary to social media reports, the game "has not done a billion dollars in pre-orders 21 weeks out" from launch.
"This is absurd. Given how pre-order curves look, nothing ever has and nothing ever will in the near future," Newzoo said. "What the data actually shows is $180 million in digital pre-order spend across the US and the five largest European markets in the final week of June, translating to a global opening week of roughly $260 million, with most of the ramp still ahead."
It added, "Run that figure through the plausible band of pre-order curves, and GTA VI is on track to book between $3.25 billion and $5.2 billion in week-one launch revenue. Even at the most conservative reading, namely that GTA 6 front-loads harder than any major title in our dataset, it lands at a tremendous number by any historical standard."
GTA 6 officially launches on November 19, but physical copies don't come with a disc, but a digital download code. Despite the controversy surrounding the move, a recent report suggested that the physical edition is a top seller at multiple retailers.