Skip to content

Build Not yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher 2 min read Published

DataDome's Segura calls its 8.9% Muse endpoint figure a measure of exposure

DataDome says 8.9% of requests in its Meta Muse sample reached form, login, payment, account-creation or cart endpoints. Researcher Jérôme Segura told Let's Data Science it counts exposure, so blocking rules built on request counts alone act on incomplete evidence.

The Engineer · Build desk

How we use AI Send a correction

Photograph accompanying DataDome's Segura calls its 8.9% Muse endpoint figure a measure of exposure
Photo: letsdatascience.com
Agentic-browser requests rose about 4.7-fold Requests DataDome logged in its agentic-browser category in August and in September, as its report states them.

DataDome's agentic-browser category went from about 12.5 million requests in August to 58.2 million in September, which the report gives as a rounded 4.7-fold increase.

Agentic-browser requests rose about 4.7-fold
MeasureValueAs ofClaim
Agentic-browser category, about12.5 million requestsAugust5
Agentic-browser category58.2 million requestsSeptember5

What happened

  • In the third quarter of 2026, DataDome's network logged close to 25 billion requests from AI agents, a 41.5% rise over the quarter before.
  • Requests in its agentic-browser category climbed from roughly 12.5 million in August to 58.2 million in September.
  • In the Muse sample, 99.3% of requests came from cloud or CDN infrastructure.
  • The report separately counts 29.1 million Muse requests from September 22 through October 3.

Why it matters

  • decision Before blocking, an operator has to write down what acceptable agent behavior means on its own site, because DataDome's figure supplies no such definition.
  • constraint The 8.9% and 99.3% describe the Muse sample only, so multiplying them by the 29.1 million total would produce counts nobody measured.
  • contradiction Segura put collection at September 21 through month end, while the 29.1 million total covers September 22 to October 3, so the sample window is unsettled.

A request log records that a URL was fetched. According to Let's Data Science (LDS), a request by itself can't show a retailer whether the agent loaded a page, tried a transaction, finished a purchase or caused harm [9]. DataDome's VP of Threat Research, Jérôme Segura, gave written answers to LDS on exactly this point [13]. "On its own, a request to a sensitive endpoint shows that an agent reached it, not what it did. Our 8.9% figure measures that exposure, not confirmed abuse," Segura said [1].

The 8.9% bucket is defined by where a request landed: forms, login, payment, account-creation or cart [2]. Abuse needs more. As LDS summarizes his answer, evidence of abuse takes additional signals, such as repeated submissions or high failure rates, set against the business's own definition of acceptable behavior [8]. In our view, a rule that fires on "agent plus checkout URL" acts on exposure alone. LDS adds that the endpoint mix does not show whether a session was authenticated, and that it could not use the percentages to estimate how many agents submitted forms, bought products or attempted fraud [10].

The growth figures have the same transfer problem. The report's rounded 4.7-fold rise holds up: 58.2 divided by 12.5 is 4.66 [14]. But these are request counts, not counts of people, successful tasks or purchases [12]. Segura said the customer base stayed generally unchanged, with most industries represented and some more heavily than others [6]. LDS notes that DataDome has published no comparison of the same sites measured by the same detection method, and that an individual business cannot assume its own traffic grew at the same rate [7].

For DataDome's quarterly rise to describe your traffic, your industry mix would have to resemble DataDome's customer mix. The detector would also have to have behaved the same way in both quarters. Neither condition is documented.

Attribution is the other open input. DataDome identifies Muse by fingerprinting, on the client side, artifacts tied to the cloud browser it uses; it does not go by the network addresses those requests share [19]. Its answers gave no error rate for that attribution and no independent data set to check it against [20]. DataDome also corrected its release to describe nine days of September availability, not eight [18]. The sample denominator and selection method were not supplied in the answers [17].

What to watch

  • DataDome publishing the sample denominator and selection method behind the 8.9% and 99.3% figures.
  • A traced example showing a Muse request through to a completed action, with session authentication status.
  • An attribution error rate or independent validation set for the Muse client-side fingerprint.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence40
Adoption50
Hype gap−10
Incentives
Insufficient
Confidence60
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    "On its own, a request to a sensitive endpoint shows that an agent reached it, not what it did. Our 8.9% figure measures that exposure, not confirmed abuse."

    Reported Supported Source: Jérôme Segura, VP of Threat Research at DataDome, in written answers to Let's Data ScienceView cited source
  2. [2]

    DataDome's report says 8.9% of requests in its sample of traffic attributed to Meta's Muse reached forms, login, payment, account-creation or cart endpoints.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  3. [3]

    The report says 99.3% of requests in the Muse sample came from cloud or CDN infrastructure.

    Reported SupportedView cited source

Get this ledger inside ChatGPT. Ask about any of our stories and the answer brings its figure, each claim’s verdict and the sources. Free, no account.

Add to ChatGPTAdd to Claude

Sources

1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. letsdatascience.com

    1 article · October 15, 2026

    DataDome tells LDS why an AI agent at checkout is not proof of abuse

Share your take

Let Clarity write the post for you.

Signed-in readers get a short post drafted on this story in the register they choose — narrative, analytical, or a direct position — editable to the last word before it goes anywhere. The share buttons at the top of this story work without an account.

Topics and entities

Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.

Topics

Loading related stories