For decades, brand reputation management meant monitoring news cycles, social media sentiment, and search results. Today, a new and far less visible risk has entered the equation. Artificial intelligence systems are now answering consumer questions about brands, often confidently, sometimes incorrectly.
From chatbots and voice assistants to AI-powered search summaries, machines are increasingly acting as intermediaries between brands and consumers. The problem is not that AI systems speak. It is that they occasionally say the wrong thing.
Across global and Indian markets, marketing teams are confronting a new kind of crisis scenario. An AI model misstates a company’s pricing. A chatbot pulls outdated controversy into present context. A generative system hallucinates product claims or attributes actions to brands that never happened. The result is not a viral outrage, but something more subtle and persistent. Misinformation delivered calmly, on demand, at scale.
This is no longer a theoretical concern. It is becoming a daily operational reality.
Consumer behaviour is shifting rapidly. Instead of searching, many users now ask. Voice assistants, conversational AI tools, and generative search interfaces are becoming default discovery layers. In India, where mobile-first behaviour dominates, this shift is especially pronounced.
Recent consumer research indicates that a growing share of users rely on AI-powered interfaces to answer questions about products, services, and companies. Globally, studies show that more than 60 percent of users trust AI-generated answers as much as traditional search results. In India, trust levels are often higher among younger digital users who view AI as neutral and efficient.
That trust becomes dangerous when the information is inaccurate.
Several international brands have already faced situations where AI tools surfaced outdated legal disputes, incorrect safety warnings, or fictional policy statements. In many cases, brands were unaware until customers began asking clarifying questions or sharing screenshots of AI responses on social media.
The challenge is that these responses are not public posts. They happen privately, one query at a time, making detection slow and remediation difficult.
AI hallucinations are not occasional glitches. They are a known limitation of large language models. Research from multiple AI labs suggests that even advanced models can produce incorrect factual statements between 10 and 30 percent of the time when answering open-ended questions.
For brands, this means the risk surface is enormous. Every AI interface that pulls from web data, training sets, or probabilistic inference can generate an answer that sounds authoritative while being wrong.
Unlike social media misinformation, AI-generated errors do not always trigger outrage. They quietly influence perception. A customer asking whether a brand has faced regulatory trouble may receive a fabricated but plausible response. Another asking for a comparison may hear an invented weakness. Over time, these micro-interactions shape brand trust.
N Chandramouli, CEO of TRA Research, has spoken about this emerging risk in the context of trust measurement. According to him, trust erosion today does not always come from scandals or backlash. It often comes from repeated low-level inconsistencies. When consumers encounter conflicting information about a brand across channels, confidence weakens even if no single incident goes viral.
While much of the early discussion has focused on global companies, Indian brands are equally exposed. As AI systems scrape, summarise, and infer from public content, any outdated article, unresolved complaint, or poorly contextualised review can resurface as a present-tense claim.
Banking, fintech, healthcare, and e-commerce brands are particularly vulnerable. In these categories, even minor inaccuracies can have serious consequences.
Marketing leaders say the issue becomes more complex because AI answers are often framed as neutral explanations rather than opinions. A chatbot stating that a delivery service has frequent delays or that a fintech app faces security issues may be pulling from old data, but the user has no way to know that.
Anupriya Acharya, CEO of Publicis Groupe South Asia, has spoken about the growing need for governance as AI systems increasingly mediate brand-consumer interactions. According to her, the industry has spent years optimising communication but not enough time safeguarding interpretation. When machines speak on behalf of brands, the margin for error shrinks dramatically.
Traditional crisis management relies on speed, visibility, and response. A controversial tweet or a misleading news report can be addressed publicly. AI misinformation does not offer that clarity.
There is no single post to correct. No platform to appeal to. The same incorrect response can be delivered to thousands of users in parallel, each in private.
This creates what crisis communication experts describe as a silent crisis. The damage is distributed, slow, and difficult to measure. By the time brand teams detect a pattern, perception may already have shifted.
Data from global reputation management firms shows that misinformation-related trust dips now take longer to recover from than campaign-related backlash. The reason is simple. Users do not realise they have been misinformed, so there is no emotional trigger that invites correction.
In response, brands are beginning to rethink monitoring itself. Social listening is no longer enough. Search visibility is no longer limited to blue links.
Some companies have started running regular AI audits, querying popular AI systems with brand-related questions to see what answers surface. Others are investing in structured data, knowledge graphs, and authoritative content designed to improve how AI models interpret their brand narrative.
SEO teams are now working alongside legal and PR functions. The objective is not ranking, but accuracy.
According to industry estimates, brands with well-maintained structured data and clear factual repositories are significantly less likely to be misrepresented by AI systems. While no approach guarantees correctness, proactive information hygiene reduces risk.
Prativa Mohapatra, Vice President and Managing Director at Adobe India, has emphasised the importance of responsible AI and content provenance. She has repeatedly stated that trust in AI systems depends on transparency and governance, not just capability. For brands, this translates into owning their data, narratives, and usage boundaries more tightly than ever before.
Legal and Regulatory Questions Are Emerging
The legal landscape is still catching up. When AI systems produce defamatory or incorrect information, accountability is unclear. Is responsibility shared between the AI provider, the data source, and the affected brand.
Globally, regulators are beginning to examine these questions. In India, discussions around digital responsibility and AI governance are accelerating, particularly in sectors like finance and healthcare.
Legal experts warn that brands may eventually be required to demonstrate due diligence in how they manage AI-related misinformation, even if they do not control the AI systems directly.
This raises a fundamental shift in brand responsibility. Reputation is no longer shaped only by what a brand says, but by what machines say about it.
Consumers Still Trust Machines
Despite growing awareness of AI limitations, consumer trust remains high. Studies show that a majority of users rarely question AI-generated responses, especially when they are delivered in confident, conversational language.
This trust asymmetry places brands in a vulnerable position. A correction issued on a website or social channel may never reach the user who received the original incorrect AI response.
Marketing leaders increasingly acknowledge that the role of brand stewardship is expanding beyond communication into education. Brands must help consumers understand how information is generated, without undermining confidence.
Arjun Vaidya, who now invests in and advises multiple consumer startups, has noted in public discussions that trust today is not only about messaging but about context. When context is missing, even accurate statements can mislead.
A New Layer of Brand Risk
The rise of AI-generated misinformation represents a structural change in how reputation risk operates. It is decentralised, automated, and persistent.
Brands are responding unevenly. Larger organisations with strong data infrastructure are better positioned. Smaller brands, especially startups, often lack the resources to monitor or influence AI outputs.
Industry data suggests that companies investing early in AI governance frameworks are seeing lower volatility in brand trust metrics. Conversely, brands reacting only after misinformation surfaces face longer recovery cycles.
This has implications for how marketing budgets are allocated. Investment is shifting from pure visibility to resilience.
The broader lesson is that branding in the AI era cannot be campaign-led alone. It must be system-led.
Every press release, FAQ, policy update, and knowledge base entry now feeds not only human readers but machines. Consistency, clarity, and accuracy have become strategic assets.
The crisis is not that AI makes mistakes. The crisis is that brands are not yet equipped to manage what happens when machines speak with authority.
As AI becomes a permanent layer between brands and consumers, the companies that succeed will be those that treat accuracy as seriously as creativity, and governance as essential to growth.
In the coming years, brand crises may not begin with a scandal or a tweet. They may begin with a question, typed quietly into a chat window, and answered incorrectly by a machine.
The challenge for marketers is clear. In a world where AI speaks, brands must ensure it speaks correctly.
Disclaimer: All data points and statistics are attributed to published research studies and verified market research. All quotes are either sourced directly or attributed to public statements.
Related Articles
