As artificial intelligence continues to reshape the digital marketing landscape, small businesses are finding AI-driven tools increasingly attractive for streamlining operations, enhancing customer personalization, and gaining a competitive edge. These tools can analyze large data sets quickly, automate routine tasks, and optimize campaigns with minimal human intervention. However, the adoption of such technologies is not without AI liability risks.
While AI offers tremendous potential, it also introduces new legal and ethical challenges. In particular, small businesses may be exposed to significant liability if these tools produce inaccurate information, propagate biased recommendations, or result in discriminatory outcomes. Understanding the nature of these risks is essential to avoid legal pitfalls and maintain consumer trust.
One major area of concern is the risk of misinformation and false advertising. AI tools that automatically generate marketing content, including product descriptions, reviews, and promotional materials, can sometimes produce statements that are misleading or outright false. This can occur due to errors in the data the AI was trained on or misinterpretation of inputs. Regardless of whether such misinformation was produced intentionally or inadvertently, businesses can still be held accountable under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.
The FTC has made it clear that all advertising must be truthful and not misleading, and this standard applies equally to content generated by automated systems. For small businesses relying heavily on third-party AI solutions, this highlights the importance of thoroughly reviewing all content before publication to ensure compliance with advertising regulations.
Bias and discrimination represent another serious AI liability risk associated with AI-driven marketing. Since AI models often learn from historical data, they can inadvertently reflect and reinforce societal biases present in those data sets. For instance, an AI tool might disproportionately target advertisements to one demographic group while excluding others based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age.
Such practices, even when unintentional, can lead to violations of anti-discrimination laws, including the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. This is especially problematic in sectors like housing, employment, and financial services, where discriminatory outcomes can result in significant legal and reputational consequences. Small businesses must recognize that delegating decision-making to AI does not absolve them of responsibility for ensuring that their marketing practices are equitable and legally compliant.
Data privacy is another area where the use of AI can pose substantial risks. These tools typically rely on collecting and analyzing vast quantities of consumer data to function effectively. Improper collection, storage, or usage of such data can lead to breaches of privacy laws such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Both laws impose strict requirements on how businesses must handle personal data and include hefty penalties for non-compliance. For small businesses, a violation—even if accidental—can be financially devastating. Ensuring that AI tools comply with relevant privacy laws and that consumer data is handled transparently and securely is therefore a critical part of responsible AI adoption.
Intellectual property infringement is another often overlooked risk when using AI-generated content. AI systems trained on large volumes of text or media can sometimes reproduce material that closely resembles copyrighted works. When this content is used in marketing, businesses may face allegations of intellectual property violations, especially if the original material belongs to a competitor or a well-known brand. The challenge is compounded by the fact that determining authorship and ownership in AI-generated content is still a developing area of law. Nonetheless, businesses can be held liable for using infringing material, regardless of whether the infringement was intentional or produced by the AI system. As such, careful vetting and legal review of AI-generated content is essential.
Another potential source of AI liability is rooted in broader negligence or product liability claims. If an AI tool malfunctions or provides faulty outputs that result in tangible harm—whether financial, reputational, or even physical—a business using the tool might be considered negligent. Courts have increasingly scrutinized how much oversight businesses exercise over their AI systems, particularly in cases where harm could have been prevented through proper monitoring or quality control. Small businesses, which may lack the legal and technical resources of larger firms, need to be especially cautious. They should not assume that outsourcing development absolves them of liability; they are still responsible for ensuring that the tools they use meet reasonable standards of care.
To mitigate these risks, small businesses must adopt a multifaceted and proactive approach. One of the most important steps is to conduct thorough due diligence when selecting AI vendors. This includes evaluating whether providers adhere to established legal and ethical standards and assessing their practices related to data sourcing, model training, and transparency. Businesses should also prioritize vendors that offer clear documentation and allow for user control and oversight.
Maintaining a human-in-the-loop strategy is another key safeguard. Even when using AI for content generation or decision-making, human review should remain a central part of the process. This helps catch errors, ensure compliance, and maintain accountability. Human oversight is especially critical in sensitive areas where the consequences of a mistake can be severe.
Bias auditing and regular system testing can further reduce the risk of discriminatory outcomes. By periodically evaluating how their AI systems perform across different demographic groups, businesses can identify and correct biased outputs before they cause harm. Using diverse training data and simulating real-world scenarios during testing can also improve system fairness.
Transparency is equally vital. Businesses should document how their AI systems operate, how decisions are made, and what data is used. When appropriate, they should disclose the use of AI in their customer interactions. This not only builds trust with consumers but can also serve as evidence of good faith and diligence in the event of legal scrutiny.
Finally, small businesses should commit to ongoing legal compliance and education. Laws and regulations governing AI and digital marketing are evolving rapidly, and staying informed is essential. Providing training to employees on how to use AI responsibly, and consulting with legal professionals to conduct periodic compliance reviews, can go a long way in preventing liability.
In conclusion, while AI-driven marketing offers exciting opportunities for small businesses to grow and innovate, it also brings new responsibilities that must not be ignored. The potential liabilities—ranging from false advertising and bias to privacy violations and negligence—are significant. However, by understanding these risks and implementing thoughtful mitigation strategies, small businesses can harness the power of AI tools in a way that is both effective and ethically sound.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Sources:
Federal Trade Commission (2021). “Marketing and Advertising on the Internet: Rules of the Road.”
U.S. Department of Justice (2022). “Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination.”
International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) (2023). “CCPA and GDPR Compliance Guide.”
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2023). “AI and IP Policy.”
Brookings Institution (2020). “Confronting the Risks of Algorithmic Bias and Error.”