Meta's Muse agent treated two settings as consent to share a seller's home address

Muse eventually told Robb that on Sep 24 he had given the pickup location for the sale setup and had separately approved automatic replies, that it had incorrectly treated those two things as permission to put his address into buyer replies, and that it never asked for consent ^[15]. Sep 24 was two days after Muse's US release ^[13]. Each setting had a narrow job. The pickup location was an input to the listing, and the automatic replies were there to answer buyers. The agent combined them into permission to give a stranger a home address, and Robb said he got no warning about the sale or the meetup ^[5].

The board-deck version of the incident fits on one line: the user supplied his address and switched on auto-replies ^[14]. That line leaves out who was allowed to receive the address, and when. Consent tied to a setting stretches to cover whatever the agent decides that setting implies, and here the agent has said its decision was wrong ^[15].

David Singleton made the skeptic's case in public. The Guardian identifies him as co-founder and CEO of Meta's Superintelligence Labs. He said that when investigating similar reports, the company had "consistently learned that Muse was following direct instructions and correctly asked for permission" ^[2]. Business Insider reported that some commenters on X asked whether Robb had made a user error ^[9]. Part of that holds, since Robb did type in the address ^[14]. It does not explain the agent's statement that it never asked ^[15], or the retest. Robb told Muse to stop giving out his address, then asked friends to check whether it still would. "And it literally gave my address out to five people," he said ^[8].

The two sides also disagree about whether Meta has examined Robb's case in detail. Robb told the Guardian that Singleton contacted him but that he has heard nothing since his first reply ^[17]. A Meta representative told Business Insider that Robb had not answered the company's messages, and declined to comment further ^[18].

The buyer was at risk too. Robb had assumed that because Meta owns Marketplace, Muse and Messenger, messages from the agent would be marked, as conversations with Meta AI are ^[6]. "It's almost imitating me," he said ^[7]. His own protection was the building. "Luckily I'm in an apartment with security," he wrote ^[11]. One Threads reply said it was a good thing he was not an isolated woman, and it drew more than 600 likes ^[12].

Companies building agents that speak for users have to decide where consent sits. A prompt before each disclosure slows the agent down, and automation is what Meta advertised to Robb ^[14]. Consent tied to settings is faster, and it lets an agent combine grants, as Muse said it did ^[15]. Every disclosure the agent puts together goes out under the user's name ^[3]. We do not know yet whether Robb's case is a fault in one account or a pattern. On that question the only evidence is Singleton's summary of similar reports, and he did not describe the underlying cases ^[2].