Michael Phillips

AI, Ads, and the Law: Why Consumer Protection Still Matters

By Michael Phillips | People’s Law Review

Artificial intelligence now writes ad copy, generates images, targets consumers, sets prices, and predicts behavior at a scale no human marketing department ever could.

The pitch is efficiency.
The promise is personalization.
The reality is something else entirely.

As AI-driven advertising expands across finance, housing, employment, healthcare, and consumer goods, old legal principles are being stress-tested in new ways. And despite the hype, one thing remains unchanged:

Technology does not nullify the law.

The Myth: AI Is Too New for Old Laws

A common refrain from companies deploying AI-driven advertising is that regulation hasn’t “caught up.”

That framing is misleading.

Consumer protection law was never limited to billboards, newspaper ads, or television commercials. Its core purpose has always been broader:

  • Prevent deception
  • Require transparency
  • Protect consumers from unfair practices

Whether an ad is written by a human copywriter or generated by a machine learning model is legally irrelevant. The harm is what matters.

What Consumer Protection Law Actually Covers

Long before AI existed, consumer protection frameworks addressed:

  • False or misleading claims
  • Material omissions
  • Unfair or deceptive acts
  • Bait-and-switch tactics
  • Targeting vulnerable populations

These principles apply regardless of delivery mechanism.

If an AI-generated ad:

  • Makes claims that cannot be substantiated
  • Hides material terms
  • Manipulates consumers through false scarcity
  • Targets individuals based on sensitive characteristics

It triggers the same legal scrutiny as any other deceptive practice.

Automation Doesn’t Dilute Responsibility

One of the most dangerous legal fictions emerging in the AI era is the idea that automation disperses accountability.

Companies increasingly argue:

  • “The model generated it.”
  • “The algorithm optimized it.”
  • “We didn’t manually approve that output.”

But delegation is not abdication.

If a business deploys an AI system to market products or services, it remains responsible for:

  • The claims made
  • The audiences targeted
  • The outcomes produced

AI is a tool. The law regulates tool use, not tool excuses.

Where AI Advertising Crosses Legal Lines

AI-driven advertising introduces new ways to violate old rules.

1. Synthetic Truthfulness

AI systems are designed to sound confident, fluent, and authoritative—even when wrong.

That creates risk when:

  • Claims are generated without verification
  • Disclaimers are buried or omitted
  • Language implies certainty where none exists

Polished misinformation is still misinformation.

2. Personalized Manipulation

AI allows ads to be tailored based on inferred traits:

  • Financial distress
  • Health anxiety
  • Emotional vulnerability
  • Cognitive or developmental differences

Targeting vulnerable individuals with exploitative messaging has long been disfavored in law. AI simply scales the problem.

3. Dynamic Pricing and False Scarcity

AI-driven systems often generate:

  • Countdown timers
  • “Only one left” warnings
  • Personalized pricing offers

When these signals are fabricated or misleading, they cross into deceptive territory—regardless of how quickly or automatically they were produced.

4. Invisible Discrimination

AI advertising can unintentionally (or deliberately) exclude or target groups in ways that implicate:

  • Housing laws
  • Employment protections
  • Credit and lending regulations

When ads are selectively shown—or withheld—based on protected characteristics, legal consequences follow.

The Due Process Angle No One Talks About

AI advertising doesn’t just affect consumers. It affects legal accountability.

When enforcement agencies investigate deceptive practices, they rely on:

  • Records
  • Decision trails
  • Explanations

AI systems often obscure all three.

If no one can explain:

  • Why an ad was shown
  • Why a claim was made
  • Why one consumer saw something another didn’t

Then meaningful review becomes difficult.

Opacity is not neutrality. It is power without scrutiny.

Why “Disclosure” Alone Is Not Enough

Some companies attempt to insulate themselves by labeling content as “AI-generated.”

That may inform consumers—but it does not cure deception.

Disclosure does not:

  • Legalize false claims
  • Excuse unfair practices
  • Override consumer protection statutes

The question is not who wrote the ad.
The question is whether it misled.

The Regulatory Gap Is Smaller Than Advertised

Despite breathless claims of regulatory paralysis, enforcement actions continue:

  • Deceptive marketing remains illegal
  • Unfair practices remain prohibited
  • Fraud remains fraud

What has changed is volume and velocity, not legal principle.

Courts and regulators are increasingly clear: AI does not create a safe harbor.

Why This Matters to Ordinary People

AI advertising is not abstract. It affects:

  • Who gets approved for credit
  • Who sees housing opportunities
  • Who is targeted for financial products
  • Who is pressured into purchases

When these systems operate without transparency or accountability, consumers are left guessing—and absorbing harm quietly.

A Familiar Pattern

The story is not new.

New technology arrives.
Claims of disruption follow.
Calls for deregulation intensify.
Harm emerges.

The law eventually responds—not by reinventing itself, but by reasserting first principles.

Truth matters.
Fairness matters.
Accountability matters.

What People’s Law Review Is Watching

We are tracking:

  • Enforcement actions involving AI marketing
  • Regulatory guidance on automated advertising
  • Court cases testing liability for algorithmic conduct
  • Consumer harm that hides behind technical language

Because when systems become complex, clarity becomes a public service.

The Bottom Line

AI may write faster.
It may target better.
It may optimize relentlessly.

But it does not rewrite the law.

Consumer protection exists because asymmetry exists—between sellers and buyers, between systems and individuals.

As advertising grows more automated, that protection becomes more important, not less.

And no matter how advanced the technology becomes, deception at scale is still deception.

People’s Law Review exists to remind the public of that simple truth—and to document what happens when innovation outruns accountability.

Leave a comment