AI output nobody governs is a liability.
One invented claim reaches a customer, and it is your company that answers for it.
It has already been tested in public
A tribunal held Air Canada responsible for what its chatbot told a customer. Deloitte Australia refunded part of a fee after an AI-assisted report was found to contain fabricated citations. The rule that is forming is simple: it is your output, whatever produced it.
Rules are arriving with dates
The EU AI Act's transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026, with penalties up to 3% of global turnover, and the US Copyright Office has stated that prompts alone do not make you the author of what a model produces. Both change how marketing output must be handled and recorded.
What most teams have
A policy document, and no mechanism. Nothing sits between a confident draft and a published page, and nobody can reconstruct later who approved which claim on what evidence.
What we do about it
Checks run before anything ships and refuse the piece if a number has no source, a claim cannot be proven or the voice is wrong. Every published piece keeps the evidence it passed with and who approved it, so the record exists before anyone needs it.
Everything we have written on this
Questions
Do we have to disclose AI use?
Increasingly yes, depending on where you operate, and the safer default is a clear record of what was produced how, kept before a regulator or a customer asks.
Can checks block real work?
They stop a piece three times at most, then the decision comes to you with the options: get the missing evidence, re-brief it, or drop it.
Who owns AI-generated content?
Authorship is not automatic from prompting, so the human contribution and the record of it matter. We keep that record as a matter of course.