Separating fact from fiction used to be much easier, but with the growth of AI and the speed of the internet, fabricating falsehoods can be done almost effortlessly. While some of this content can be dismissed as harmless, a significant amount can gain a large audience quickly. The more this misinformation or disinformation is shared, the harder it becomes to debunk.
The seriousness of the spread of false information should not be downplayed. The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2025 Global Risks Report named government misinformation and disinformation one of the key leading short-term risks that could fuel instability and undermine trust in authority. It also warns that this growing pernicious trend could have a negative impact on businesses. For example, misinformation and disinformation around some industries could stifle growth and sales. For sectors like biotech, this is a serious problem, with biohackers and other non-medical professionals touting “unproven” health remedies or performance-enhancing procedures and slamming those that are actually effective, regulated and safe.
Furthermore, the WEF warns that some governments may foment aggressive misinformation and disinformation campaigns about goods and services from targeted countries. This could harden public perception, potentially leading to more frequent consumer boycotts of products—hardly a welcome development in an era of increased geopolitical tension that has already spilled over into trade wars and spiraling tariffs. AI could exacerbate consumer boycotts further as algorithms programmed to highlight trending or popular content could prioritize reader engagement over accuracy and unintentionally promote misinformation in the process—a phenomenon that is already a reality on many social media channels.
The problem is that misinformation “exploits emotionally charged narratives to blind people to facts and alters public perception profoundly,” said Brandon Schroth, founder of Reporter Outreach, a search engine optimization (SEO) specialist. “The internet has accelerated the rate at which misinformation is disseminated. Countering claims cannot keep up with the rate at which false assertions are made, resulting in the need for a swift strategic response from companies.”
The Business Impact of Misinformation
Some high-profile companies have already experienced problems with misinformation. In 2016, sportswear company New Balance faced considerable backlash on social media after false rumors circulated that the brand was closely aligned with far-right movements. Similarly, in 2022, Eli Lilly’s stock price fell by 4.37% after a fake Twitter account impersonating the pharmaceutical brand falsely announced that insulin would be given away for free (as opposed to the $1,000 monthly pricetag it could cost some U.S. citizens without health insurance at the time). In 2023, Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Michel Doukeris blamed misinformation on social media for stoking a conservative consumer boycott of Bud Light that saw sales drop by about 25% after the bestselling U.S. beer was promoted by Dylan Mulvaney, a social media influencer who is transgender.
Doukeris told the Financial Times that “people often talk about this topic in social media like noise…You have one fact and every person puts an opinion behind the fact. And then the opinions start to be replicated fast on each and every comment. By the time that 10 or 20 people put a comment out there, the reality is no longer what the fact is but is more [about] what the comments were.”
In the December 2023 paper titled “Between Brand Attacks and Broader Narratives: How Direct and Indirect Misinformation Erode Consumer Trust,” academics from Cardiff and Stanford Universities looked at the consequences of the spread of misinformation on company marketing campaigns.
The researchers distinguished between “direct” and “indirect” misinformation. Direct brand-related misinformation included “fake news,” where false information is intentionally distributed online and is designed to mimic the format of legitimate news sources, and fake reviews, where companies pay sellers to post favorable appraisals of products to the detriment of other companies. The researchers found that when consumers were exposed to direct misinformation, it could influence their decision-making, irrespective of whether they believed the false narrative or not. Even when consumers were exposed to indirect misinformation—such as legitimate brands having ads on clickbait news websites that peddle false stories—researchers found that, by association, consumers could experience confusion, doubt, and a general sense of vulnerability and mistrust about a brand, which could affect their spending habits.
“Misinformation is not just a PR problem—it is a strategic business risk,” said Elika Dadsetan-Foley, CEO and executive director at business transformation consultancy Visions. “Companies must treat it like any other crisis: Anticipate it, plan for it and respond with clarity and consistency.”
Misinformation can pose a range of threats to companies. Besides sparking consumer boycotts, false narratives can quickly shape public perception and erode brand trust, leading to loss of investor confidence and reputational harm. It can also lead to disengaged and polarized workforces, resulting in employees leaving or refusing to join organizations they believe are misaligned with their values. Misinformation campaigns that target specific industries can also create increased legal and regulatory scrutiny as authorities, shareholders and stakeholders demand increased assurance.
Why and how companies become the target of malicious campaigns can vary. A marketing campaign or policy stance can hit a nerve of the far right or far left. A high-profile executive may voice an unpopular or controversial opinion on a social or political issue. A company can do business on the wrong side of a border. An organization can show signs of financial distress and simply become a target for chaos and manipulation. Whatever the reason, false stories can gather momentum quickly and cause serious damage.
Developing a Response Plan
Companies generally cannot rely on the law to correct falsehoods, repair reputational damage or regain financial loss. According to Yelena Ambartsumian, founding attorney at AMBART LAW, it is very difficult to hold any person or company accountable for spreading misinformation via the internet or social media sites. In the United States, online platforms are immune from civil liability for content provided by their users under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act. It also shields them from moderation activities that they undertake in good faith to remove certain content. “To tackle the problem depends on knowing who made the misleading or defamatory claims,” Ambartsumian said. “In the age of AI and social media, this is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Having effective risk management and crisis response processes in place is paramount. The first step in tackling misinformation is to respond appropriately and rebuff the falsehood quickly—if necessary. Sometimes misinformation does not warrant a reaction. Recognizing what needs a response, and who it should come from, can make all the difference when countering misinformation and disinformation.
“Determining the level of response—if any—is absolutely critical,” said Megan Sweeney, public relations director at the American Staffing Association. “If it is a small, isolated attack with no traction, monitoring it may be the best initial response. An opinion piece in the New York Times is not an appropriate response to a Facebook comment with two likes. You do not want to accidentally amplify a falsehood by overreacting.”
Companies should define their threshold for the level of misinformation they are prepared to tolerate and then monitor the threat accordingly. Sweeney said it is crucial not to blow the story up further and turn the fact that the company is trying to set the record straight into a story itself, where people get the impression the organization is trying to hide, remove or censor information. This is known as creating a “Streisand effect,” named after Hollywood star Barbara Streisand’s legal attempts to prevent photographs of her house from being circulated online. After her public complaints called attention to the issue, downloads of the image spiked from only a handful of times to more than 420,000 in a month.
If a company sees a critical or negative social media post, one of the easiest first options is to respond directly to the person who posted it and ask how the organization can work to make it right. It is also important to avoid knee-jerk reactions. “It is better to provide a strategic response a few minutes later than sending off the first draft that pops into your head,” Sweeney said. Companies can also create blogs, videos or social media posts to set the record straight and highlight the good work that they do. “You do not have to set a defensive tone when shedding light on the truth,” she continued.
Organizations must take steps to build the infrastructure they need to respond. Companies should have pre-established crisis response teams trained in fact-based, transparent communication to counter false claims quickly. Central to this effort, identify who should be alerted when a piece of misinformation or disinformation is gaining momentum, and recognize that different people may need to be included on different topics. For example, matters involving a financial issue may involve the CFO, the finance department and the accounts team, while false criticisms from a disgruntled former employee may require involvement from human resources and legal. The CEO may need to step in to respond to more general claims about product safety or corporate behavior.
Monitoring and Countering Misinformation
Given the speed at which false stories can be created with AI and proliferate and spread on social media, experts say companies need to learn how to proactively monitor for malicious stories in real-time before they spiral out of control. The challenge, however, arises from how companies currently monitor for these sorts of attacks. “Historically, communications and PR teams have focused their attention on tracking comments and trends across mainstream social media such as X, Instagram or TikTok,” said Rebecca Jones, associate director of client accounts at business intelligence firm Sibylline. “However, that is not where these disinformation campaigns begin, and arguably, by the time disinformation hits these sites, the issue has already gone viral and you are in crisis.”
More often than not, misinformation begins on alternative social sites where the audience is more likely to react to a story that triggers emotions. Indeed, an issue can sit in this ecosystem slowly being refined and gathering momentum over the course of hours, days or even weeks before it migrates to mainstream and goes viral. Monitoring these sites for potential threats can be a game changer as it can help teams to get ahead of a potential crisis.
“Even if it cannot be stopped—which is usually the case—hopefully such an early warning mechanism enables teams to have a plan of action in place for when it does hit the mainstream,” Jones said. “Your executives are prepped, the press team is ready to respond, and perhaps you have even taken steps to ‘pre-bunk’ the story.”
Social listening tools—software applications that companies can use to continuously scan social media sites for mentions of their name, brands and industry trends—are also fast becoming critical solutions. By analyzing conversations in real time, companies have the advantage of being able to verify and fact-check claims early enough to take action.
“My advice is to invest in good-quality social listening tools that can flag when certain conversations or content start to pick up traction and might fall into the category of misinformation or disinformation,” said Dr. Magdalena Marchowska-Raza, assistant professor in marketing at North Dakota State University. “That way, there is a chance to step in before things spiral and go viral. I would also recommend carrying out some form of audit to identify areas of the business that could be targeted. This could then be used to shape a marketing campaign that educates consumers about the issue. The goal is to help them recognize and question false information when they see it so it does not carry as much weight or influence when it appears.”
Open-source intelligence and AI are also playing a crucial role in helping companies combat misinformation campaigns. Open-source intelligence tools can trawl through publicly available data quickly, allowing businesses to analyze networks of hundreds of thousands of accounts to pinpoint the most influential voices within key movements. Meanwhile, AI-driven monitoring allows companies to detect abnormal spikes in negative mentions either about themselves, their products or brands, or issues associated with them.
For example, such monitoring would detect and alert a pharmaceutical company if an anti-vaccine movement that normally averages 50 mentions of a particular drug brand a day suddenly increases that number to 500. By tracking the influencers behind these kinds of movements in real-time and identifying shifts in narratives relating to a company or brand, companies have a better chance of either engaging strategically or correcting the narrative.
According to experts, having friends and corporate allies can be a very useful weapon to deflect malicious claims. Companies should identify potential spokespeople outside of their organizations who can be called upon to help push back against false narratives. Businesses can collaborate with customers, fact-checking organizations, consumer advocacy groups and trusted media to amplify credible information.
Building an influencer program can be a good way for companies to protect themselves. “It is really hard to do everything yourself,” said Adam Blacker, PR director at website hosting information site HostingAdvice.com. “You need to build a strong community of fans who love and support your brand. They, in turn, become brand ambassadors.
Blecker explained, “Think about murder mystery shows. Most of the time the family refuses to believe one of their own could be a murderer. They defend and maybe even look to clear their family member’s name. Your brand needs a group of people who will not easily believe negative or false news about your brand. They, along with paid influencers, create a bit of a public sentiment moat. You want your average Joes and people with large followings—who the average Joes also likely follow—to be on your side from the start.”
It is important for companies to engage with influencers early on. “Simply monitoring trends is not enough,” said Pat Butler, executive vice president of strategic engagement at data analytics firm Babel Street. “Organizations must also build long-term engagement strategies within these groups to earn their trust, otherwise they risk remaining under suspicion, unable to effectively influence the narrative.”
Companies should identify and track the top influencers discussing their brand, whether they are advocates or critics. Rather than reacting to every negative post, companies should focus on influential voices whose statements have the potential to shape public perception and engage with them proactively. “Instead of waiting for a crisis, brands can build relationships with key influencers to establish credibility before misinformation spreads,” Butler said. This might involve working with scientists, journalists or thought leaders who can serve as trusted voices when countering false narratives.
Companies should also set up automated alerts about brand mentions online. Continuous monitoring ensures that companies can detect disinformation campaigns as they begin to gain traction, allowing them to respond before misinformation is perceived as truth. “Ultimately, the key to countering misinformation is not just debunking false claims but ensuring that accurate information reaches the right audiences at the right time,” Butler said.
Misinformation is a critical and growing risk for organizations. It is vital to develop a strategy to avoid the negative impacts because the stake can be high. “Misinformation does not just distort reality—it erodes trust, fuels division and creates lasting reputational damage,” Dadsetan-Foley said. “Companies that ignore this risk do so at their own peril.”