The imposition of a standard version of the ISBL as the language for conducting some types of business transactions is a likely outcome on the basis of existing trends. One approach already in use is to use pricing policies and other strategies to ensure that business partners, including customers and suppliers, find it economically desirable to interact with autonomous systems. Organisations with an interest in imposing the ISBL in this way logically include all those working to an efficiency-oriented business model such as government departments and agencies, banks, utilities, and other organisations with highly routinised modes of doing business.

Examples of the approach can be found with the installation of B2B procurement exchanges, where purchasers combine to develop a large transaction-processing vehicle based on standard definitions of goods and services (Hammer, 1996). What has quickly become apparent is that large companies can in this way put themselves in a position to dictate to their suppliers on modes of interaction, often at great expense to those other companies. The failure of a number of major B2B projects has somewhat slowed the pace of change in this area, but the innate potential for the exercise of control is evident.

Other examples on a smaller scale can also be found. One such is provided by the organisation Tabcorp, one of the major players in the Australian gambling industry. Despite public concern with the level of gambling in Australia, Tabcorp has consistently raised the level of the minimum bets that can be placed by telephone bettors through a human operator. This has been accompanied by an extension of the gambling period and a lowering of the betting minimum for gamblers willing to use online and voice recognition services that interface with autonomous systems. Punters have in effect been forced to decide whether to increase the size of their minimum bets, or use a service that anecdotal evidence suggests is widely disliked.