ChatGPT is spreading wrong info about my company - how do I fix it?
Community discussion on AI search crisis management. How to handle when AI systems spread incorrect information about your brand.
Last month, ChatGPT told a potential customer that we had “faced multiple lawsuits for data breaches.” This is completely false. We’ve never had a data breach or related lawsuit.
What happened:
Our concerns:
Questions:
Traditional crisis management didn’t prepare us for this.
This is becoming increasingly common. Let me break down the AI crisis landscape:
AI crisis differs from traditional PR:
| Traditional Crisis | AI Crisis |
|---|---|
| Remove/takedown content | Can’t remove from AI training |
| Single source fix | Multi-platform distributed |
| One-time response | Ongoing source correction |
| Direct stakeholder communication | Can’t control AI responses |
The $67.4 billion problem:
Global losses from AI hallucinations in 2024 reached $67.4 billion. Your situation isn’t rare - it’s increasingly common.
Crisis vector analysis:
| Platform | How Misinformation Spreads | Detection Priority |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | Training data gaps, conflicting info | High - 800M+ users |
| Perplexity | Low-quality source citation | High - cites sources |
| Google AI Overviews | Misapplication of information | Critical - billions see |
| Claude | Conservative but still hallucinates | Medium |
Immediate actions for your situation:
Source authority building for crisis correction:
Why it works:
AI systems continuously update. RAG-based systems (Perplexity, Google AI) pull from live sources. Even ChatGPT updates its training data.
When your authoritative content is:
AI systems will prefer your version of the truth.
Immediate source authority actions:
Create explicit “About” content
Build external validation
Schema markup everything
Monitor and respond
Timeline expectations:
You’re not “convincing AI” - you’re becoming the most authoritative source.
Detection infrastructure for AI crises:
What to monitor:
| Query Type | Example | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Brand name direct | “What do you know about [Company]?” | Weekly |
| Trust/reputation | “Is [Company] trustworthy?” | Weekly |
| Specific concerns | “[Company] security/lawsuits/problems” | Weekly |
| Product queries | “[Company] [product] review” | Bi-weekly |
| Competitive | “[Company] vs [Competitor]” | Monthly |
Platforms to monitor:
Monitoring setup:
Manual (free):
Automated (recommended):
Tools like Am I Cited can:
Alert triggers:
Set up alerts for:
Crisis response playbook framework:
Phase 1: Detection (Hour 0-24)
Phase 2: Assessment (Day 1-3)
| Severity | Indicators | Response Level |
|---|---|---|
| Minor | One platform, obscure queries | Content team |
| Moderate | Multiple platforms, moderate queries | Marketing + Legal |
| Major | Google AI Overviews, common queries | Executive + PR |
| Critical | Safety/legal allegations, widespread | Full crisis activation |
Phase 3: Response (Day 1-Week 2)
Immediate:
Short-term:
Medium-term:
Phase 4: Recovery (Week 2+)
Spokesperson preparation for AI crises:
Key talking points:
When media asks about AI misinformation:
“We’ve identified inaccurate information appearing in some AI-generated responses. To be clear: [factual statement]. We’re working to ensure authoritative sources are available to AI systems, but we want customers to know: [direct refutation of false claim].”
What NOT to say:
Customer communication template:
“You may have encountered inaccurate information about [Company] in AI search results. We want to be clear: [factual statement]. AI systems can sometimes generate errors, which is why we encourage verifying important information through official sources like [your website/official channels].”
Sales team talking points:
When prospects mention AI concerns:
“I’ve heard that come up before - actually, that’s not accurate. Here’s our SOC 2 certification and our public security page. Happy to walk through our actual track record.”
Proactive crisis prevention:
Build the fortress before you need it:
Authoritative “About” content
External validation documentation
Monitoring baseline
Crisis materials prepared
The security-specific angle:
If you’re in tech/SaaS, create a dedicated security page:
Make this the authoritative source on your security posture.
The regulatory landscape (awareness item):
Emerging regulations:
Why this matters for crisis prep:
Future regulations may:
Current state:
No clear legal pathway to “make AI stop lying about you.” But this is changing.
Practical implication:
Document everything now:
This documentation may matter for:
For now:
Focus on source authority (works today) while keeping documentation for potential future options.
This thread has been incredibly helpful. Here’s our action plan:
Immediate (This Week):
Short-term (Next 2 Weeks):
Content creation:
Schema implementation:
External validation:
Ongoing:
Monitoring setup:
Crisis preparedness:
Metrics:
Key insight:
We can’t “fix” AI directly. We can become the most authoritative source on ourselves, making AI’s job of being accurate easier.
Thanks everyone - this is exactly the framework we needed.
Get personalized help from our team. We'll respond within 24 hours.
Detect false information in AI-generated answers before it spreads. Get real-time alerts when AI platforms mention your brand.
Community discussion on AI search crisis management. How to handle when AI systems spread incorrect information about your brand.
Community discussion on correcting misinformation and inaccurate information in AI-generated responses. Real experiences from brand managers dealing with AI hal...
Community discussion on disputing inaccurate AI information about companies and products. Real experiences from brand managers on formal dispute processes and w...
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and analyze our traffic. See our privacy policy.