Has anyone successfully disputed inaccurate AI information through official channels? What actually works?

I’ve helped 30+ companies navigate AI misinformation disputes. Here’s what actually works:

Channel Effectiveness Ranking:

1. Perplexity - Most Responsive

• Feedback button on each response
• Enterprise support for business accounts
• Changes within days because it retrieves live
• Best ROI for dispute efforts

2. Google (AI Overviews) - Moderately Responsive

• Standard webmaster tools apply
• Content removal for legal issues
• Slower but systematic process

3. ChatGPT/OpenAI - Least Responsive

• Feedback form exists but low success rate
• Enterprise customers get more attention
• Training data changes take months

4. Claude/Anthropic - Moderate

• Feedback available
• More responsive to documented errors

The Real Solution:

Disputing AI outputs directly has low success rate. What works:

1. Update all authoritative sources with correct info
2. Wait for AI systems to recrawl/retrain
3. Monitor and continue updating

AI learns from sources. Fix the sources, AI eventually follows.

Legal perspective on AI misinformation:

When legal action might be appropriate:

• Clear defamation (false statements harming reputation)
• Materially false business information causing documented harm
• Persistent errors after good-faith correction attempts

The legal challenges:

• AI companies have broad CDA Section 230 protection
• “Opinion” vs “fact” distinctions are murky
• Attribution issues (did AI generate it or train on it?)
• Discovery is complex for AI training data

What legal pressure can accomplish:

• Gets you to the right people at AI companies
• Creates formal documentation trail
• May expedite internal review processes
• Establishes standing for future action if needed

What it won’t accomplish:

• Immediate removal (no “take down” process like DMCA)
• Changes to model knowledge without retraining
• Guaranteed resolution timeline

My recommendation:

Exhaust normal channels first. Document everything. Legal letter as escalation, not first step. Litigation is extremely expensive and uncertain.

Most cases resolve through source updates + time, not legal action.

I’ll share what actually worked for us:

The situation: ChatGPT said we were “acquired by [Large Company]” - we weren’t. We’re independent. This was causing massive confusion.

What didn’t work:

• ChatGPT feedback (ignored)
• Email to OpenAI support (form response)
• Twitter posts tagging OpenAI (no response)

What worked:

1. Wikipedia Update We didn’t have a Wikipedia page. We created one (we met notability) with correct info and citations.

2. Wikidata Entry Created detailed Wikidata entry with structured data showing our independence.

3. Press Release Issued release specifically stating we’re independent, distributed widely.

4. Website Statement Added FAQ: “Is [Company] owned by [Large Company]? No, we are independent.”

5. Time 6 weeks later, ChatGPT started getting it right.

The lesson:

We couldn’t change ChatGPT directly. But we flooded authoritative sources with correct info. AI eventually learned from updated sources.

Focus on what you control: your sources. Not what you can’t control: AI outputs.

Perplexity-specific tips since it’s the most responsive:

How to use Perplexity feedback effectively:

1. Be specific in feedback

   • Not: “This is wrong”
   • Yes: “The headquarters is stated as San Francisco but we’re in Austin. Source: [link to About page]”

2. Provide authoritative sources

   • Link to your official website
   • Link to press coverage
   • Link to any documentation

3. Explain the impact

   • “This misinformation is causing customer confusion”
   • Enterprise feedback gets more attention

Response timeline:

We’ve seen corrections in as fast as:

• 24-48 hours for clear factual errors with sources
• 1-2 weeks for more complex corrections
• Immediate for new retrieval (since Perplexity searches live)

Key insight:

Perplexity pulls from current web content. If your website and other sources are correct, Perplexity should reflect that quickly. If it doesn’t, the feedback process works.

Documentation is crucial for disputes. Here’s what to track:

Evidence Log Template:

For each instance of misinformation:

• Date discovered
• Screenshot of AI response
• Specific incorrect information
• Correct information (with source link)
• Platform (ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.)
• Business impact (if any)

Dispute Attempt Log:

For each correction attempt:

• Date submitted
• Platform and channel used
• What you submitted
• Any response received
• Result (corrected/not corrected/partial)

Business Impact Documentation:

• Customer complaints referencing AI misinformation
• Partner inquiries about incorrect info
• Sales conversations where misinformation came up
• Quantifiable impact if possible (lost deals, etc.)

Why this matters:

If you escalate to legal, enterprise support, or executives, you need documentation. “It’s been wrong for months” isn’t compelling. “Here are 47 documented instances, 3 customer complaints, and 2 lost deals” is compelling.

Start documenting now, even before you escalate.

PR angle that can help:

Option 1: Industry Coverage Reach out to tech journalists who cover AI accuracy. A story about your company’s misinformation struggle:

• Brings attention to AI companies
• Creates pressure for resolution
• Establishes public record

Option 2: Thought Leadership Write about your experience:

• Blog post on your company site
• Guest post on industry publication
• LinkedIn article reaching your network

This creates content that:

• Corrects the record publicly
• Gives AI new content to train on
• May attract AI company attention

Option 3: Industry Coalitions Connect with other companies facing similar issues:

• Collective voice is louder
• May attract regulatory attention
• Shared best practices

Caution:

Don’t make your story “AI is terrible.” Make it “We’re working to ensure AI accuracy and here’s how.” Collaborative tone gets better response than adversarial.

This thread gave me a clear action plan:

Immediate Actions:

1. Perplexity - Submit detailed feedback with sources for each error

   • Expect 24-48 hour response
   • Most likely to succeed quickly

2. Source Updates

   • Update/create Wikidata entry
   • Ensure website has clear facts
   • Issue clarifying press release

3. Documentation

   • Screenshot all current misinformation
   • Log all correction attempts
   • Document any business impact

If No Progress After 30 Days:

4. Enterprise Escalation

   • We’re ChatGPT Enterprise customers - use that channel
   • Package: Documentation + business impact + timeline

5. PR Consideration

   • Blog post about our correction journey
   • Positions us as working on AI accuracy

If Still No Progress After 60 Days:

6. Legal Review
   • Have counsel send formal letter
   • Not litigation, just formal attention request

Key insight:

Fix sources, not AI directly. AI learns from sources. The most effective “dispute” is making correct information overwhelmingly prominent everywhere.

Thanks everyone for the practical guidance!