For businesses facing damaging allegations, establishing the facts has traditionally been central to protecting their reputation. But what happens when false information spreads faster than it can be challenged, and audiences no longer trust the sources attempting to correct it?

These questions were explored in a recent two-part discussion on Bird & Bird’s MediaWrites podcast.

Their discussion examined how disinformation is being used against businesses and individuals, the growing influence of AI, and why conventional legal and communications responses are not always sufficient.

Why correcting the record is no longer enough

One of the more troubling aspects of the current information environment is that declining public trust does not necessarily reduce the effectiveness of disinformation. It may actually make the problem worse.

As Lawrence observed, uncertainty about what can be believed creates favourable conditions for those deliberately spreading misleading material. It also makes the task of communicating accurate information more difficult.

In the past, an organisation might have turned to an established newspaper or broadcaster to communicate its position. Today, that approach may have little effect on the audiences it most needs to reach. People increasingly encounter information through algorithmically driven feeds and communities that reinforce their existing views. A correction in the Financial Times or The Guardian may never reach them, and even if it does, they may reject it because of where it appeared.

Jeff placed this problem in a broader context, distinguishing between misinformation, which can arise through genuine error, and disinformation, which involves the deliberate circulation of false or misleading claims. He also described how coordinated networks of accounts, websites and automated activity can manufacture an impression of public support or outrage that does not genuinely exist.

For organisations, this makes it harder to challenge false claims. Disinformation can be made to appear credible through coordinated online activity, while even a well evidenced correction may struggle to convince audiences who already distrust the source.

How AI can revive old reputational threats

AI has made it far easier to produce convincing false content and spread it rapidly, increasing both the volume of disinformation and the difficulty organisations face in responding to it.

Jeff highlighted how AI makes it easier to produce synthetic images, cloned voices and persuasive content tailored to different audiences. What previously required a coordinated operation involving multiple people can now be achieved with fewer resources and in much less time.

Lawrence’s concern, however, extended beyond the technology itself. He questioned whether organisations, in their search for new technical solutions, risk overlooking the basic principles of building and maintaining a credible reputation.

AI may be changing the speed at which false information spreads, but many of the underlying vulnerabilities are familiar: limited public information, an inconsistent communications record, unresolved allegations and an inability to respond quickly when an issue arises.

These vulnerabilities become particularly significant when AI tools draw on existing online material to generate responses about an organisation.

Lawrence described a case in which an article published in a German publication in 2013 unexpectedly became a prominent source in an LLM’s response. The article had existed for years without becoming a major concern, but the way AI systems retrieved and presented information gave it renewed significance.

The example illustrates how AI search tools can bring previously obscure material back into circulation, potentially giving old allegations a significance they never had when first published.

It also creates a particular challenge for privately held businesses and individuals who have deliberately maintained a limited public profile. Where relatively little authoritative information exists, a small amount of inaccurate or deliberately planted material may exert a disproportionate influence on the picture presented to someone researching them.

The implication is that organisations need a much clearer understanding of their existing informational footprint. Knowing what has been published is only part of the exercise. They also need to understand which sources are being used to form judgements about them, how those sources are being interpreted, and where gaps in their public record leave room for distortion.

Why taking down false information is not always the answer

The discussion also considered one of the first questions organisations tend to ask when damaging information appears online: how can we get it taken down?

Lawrence described conversations with clients whose immediate priority was to secure the removal of false or misleading claims, even when the practical barriers had already been explained.

The difficulty is that the legal and technical mechanisms available for tracing and removing content rarely move at the same speed as an online campaign. Material may originate in another jurisdiction, be distributed through anonymous accounts or pass through several layers of republication. By the time its source has been identified, the allegation may have spread far beyond the original platform.

Tom examined these limitations from a legal perspective, including the difficulty of identifying those responsible and the potential consequences of pursuing public defamation proceedings. A legal challenge may be justified, but it can also attract fresh attention to allegations that would otherwise have remained relatively obscure.

Jeff made a related point about counter-speech. A public correction does not automatically persuade people who are already hostile to the organisation making it. In some circumstances, it may do little more than introduce the allegation to a wider audience.

Organisations therefore need to be selective about when and how they respond.

Lawrence emphasised the importance of identifying which allegations are influencing important stakeholders, rather than attempting to challenge everything published online. Where investors, regulators or commercial partners are concerned, direct engagement may be more effective than seeking corrections across multiple platforms.

The same judgement applies to search engine optimisation. Lawrence noted that while SEO retains a role in managing an organisation’s digital presence, attempting to displace damaging results is neither a rapid solution nor a substitute for addressing the underlying issue. Any lasting improvement needs to be supported by credible content and a substantiated account of the facts.

Preparing before a reputational attack

Lawrence stressed the importance of preparing for disinformation before it becomes a problem, particularly by understanding where an organisation may be vulnerable and ensuring it has the right resources in place to respond quickly.

DRD works with digital forensic specialists to identify vulnerabilities in clients’ online profiles, including the sources influencing search results and AI-generated responses. This can help establish where inaccurate material is gaining prominence and where a limited public record leaves clients exposed.

The role of strategic communications goes beyond monitoring negative coverage. It involves considering how existing information could be taken out of context, where an organisation has failed to establish its position publicly, and which issues might become vulnerable to deliberate manipulation.

The practical requirements can also be underestimated. As Lawrence pointed out, appointing lawyers, communications advisers and forensic specialists during a live crisis can consume valuable time, particularly within large organisations where onboarding and compliance procedures are extensive.

A written crisis plan is not enough. Organisations need to identify potential vulnerabilities in advance and ensure that the people responsible for responding have the authority and resources to act quickly.

Lawrence noted that reputational attacks are becoming increasingly personal, with senior executives and sometimes their families drawn into disputes involving the businesses they lead. The immediate harm can be emotional and intrusive, even where the measurable commercial consequences are limited.

At the same time, the commercial consequences may not become apparent through media monitoring alone. Lawrence described an investment group that believed allegations concerning it had largely been contained, only to find them raised during a fundraising conversation. What had appeared to be an online reputational issue had become a factor in an investor’s assessment of risk.

The volume of negative coverage is therefore a poor measure of reputational damage. What matters most is whether it is affecting the confidence and behaviour of people important to the organisation.

For businesses assessing their exposure, this argues for combining digital monitoring with an understanding of what is being raised in investor conversations, commercial negotiations, regulatory discussions and internal communications.

Responding proportionately

The closing advice from Lawrence and Jeff was to avoid panic. Reputational attacks can be deeply unsettling, particularly when individuals and their families become targets, but allowing a disinformation campaign to consume an organisation’s attention can create further problems.

Lawrence advocated a proportionate response, led by a dedicated team, that allows the wider business to continue operating. The priority should be to understand where false information is gaining influence and whether it is affecting the decisions of investors, regulators or other important stakeholders.

Establishing the truth remains essential. But organisations also need to be prepared for circumstances in which proving that something is false does not, by itself, prevent reputational damage.

Lawrence Dore joined Professor Jeff Howard for a two-part discussion on crisis management in the age of disinformation, hosted by Tom Moore for Bird & Bird’s MediaWrites podcast.

Click here to listen to episode 1 on Soundcloud 

Click here to listen episode 1 on Spotify 

Click here to listen to episode 2 on Soundcloud 

Click here to listen to episode 2 on Spotify