60% of U.S. Shoppers Distrust AI-Generated Product Photos: Baymard

Sixty percent of U.S. online shoppers say AI-generated product images would make them less confident about buying, according to a June 2026 study from e-commerce UX research organization Baymard. The survey polled 2,273 U.S. shoppers, and the numbers spell trouble for retailers replacing photography with generative AI to cut costs.

The breakdown matters as much as the headline figure. Of those surveyed, 25% said AI-generated images would slightly reduce their purchase confidence, while 18% said they'd significantly reduce it. Another 17% — roughly one in six — said they would not feel confident enough to buy the product at all. Just 18% said an AI-generated label would make no difference to their purchasing decision.

That's a direct hit to conversion for any e-commerce operation weighing generative AI against a photo budget.

What does this change for commercial photographers?

Plenty. Retailers have been turning to generative AI for product imagery — lifestyle shots, virtual models, other marketing visuals — largely to reduce photography costs. That pressure is real: fashion photo studios are closing as brands chase the savings AI offers. But Baymard's data suggests the pendulum can swing back, at least for core product views, because shoppers actively punish images they know are synthetic.

Christian Holst, Baymard's co-founder, put the finding bluntly: "Shoppers don't treat product photos as decoration. They use them to check what they're actually going to receive: the color, the fit, the texture, the scale."

He didn't stop there. "An AI-generated image undermines exactly that. For one in six shoppers, it's enough to walk away from the purchase."

For photographers and studios pitching e-commerce clients, that's a quantifiable argument: authentic primary product photography protects conversion, and one in six buyers walks when it's missing.

Where AI still fits

Holst isn't arguing for a blanket ban. He says AI still has a place in product imagery, but retailers should prioritize authentic photography for core product views. AI-generated backgrounds and lifestyle scenes can work as supporting visuals, he adds — provided brands take active steps to maintain shopper trust.

Baymard's recommendations follow that split:

• Prioritize authentic photography for primary product images.
• Limit AI-generated visuals to supporting content.
• Address potential shopper skepticism directly when using AI imagery.

The trust problem isn't hypothetical. Last month, PetaPixel reported that food delivery app Just Eat apologized for several inaccurate AI-generated photos on menus — including a picture of bacon and eggs floating in a soda that readers found nauseating. It's the visible failure mode of AI imagery deployed without oversight: wrong products, wrong textures, and a public apology after.

The business calculation

The study frames the trade-off clearly. Generative AI cuts production costs on one line of the budget, but for a meaningful share of shoppers it degrades the information value of product imagery itself. Shoppers read photos as evidence of what arrives in the box — color, fit, texture, scale — and synthetic images break that contract.

For working commercial photographers, the data supports a two-tier pitch: authentic capture for the hero and primary product views, AI-assisted scenes for the supporting layer. For retailers already deep into AI substitution, the one-in-six walk-away figure gives them a number to weigh against the savings.

Baymard has published the full findings and charts on its website, and the report lands as studio closures continue across fashion — a market shift now running into the first hard consumer-side evidence that shoppers notice, and penalize, what's been swapped out.