AI agents can transact online on behalf of a human principal---browsing, paying, receiving, and reviewing---without linking a transaction to a principal. That architecture starves algorithmic discrimination of its inputs---identity, purchase history, location history, behavioral traces, and demographic proxies---but also forecloses its proof. Disparate-treatment needs comparators; disparate-impact needs protected-class baselines; and Iqbal-era pleading needs specific factual allegations---doctrinal predicates that anonymous transactions never generate. The effects fall asymmetrically: those most vulnerable to discrimination are least able to afford the shield and, when harms remain, least able to prove them. The challenge for the law shifts from detecting and remedying algorithmic discrimination to governing agent-mediated anonymity as civil rights infrastructure: ensuring access to privacy-preserving agents, regulating abuse without forced identification, and deciding whether retailers may refuse to deal with agents at all.