In an extension to Infinite's typical '5 Minutes With...' series, today we speak with William Bowes, General Counsel of YouGov Plc and former GC of Condé Nast.

William is an AI ethics, governance and policy specialist, having spent much of his career advising global media companies on digital legal and public policy issues. Here, he discusses the new frontier in news curation: AI-generated news websites, which have not only caught out PR tools but also journalists being provided AI-generated case studies, and even top-tier media titles running bylines from an AI journalist.

How can PR professionals respond to AI news sites publishing factual inaccuracy or potentially libellous information about a client?

William Bowes: As every PR expert knows, the starting point is to establish the facts and then decide whether there are practical or communications avenues to correct the record. Even if AI companies may be less receptive to such messages, if you see a reputable publisher having incorporated inaccurate AI content they might for reputational reasons be keen to correct this. But assuming those fail and you need to take legal steps – what can you do?

Well, it depends on the inaccuracy as not all incorrect statements are defamatory or give you a legal cause of action. Also, keep in mind that when dealing with AI, many of these are operated by US companies. First amendment protections around free speech in the US make it much harder to legally prevent or remove a story from publication than in the UK.

If you do need to adopt a legal approach:

1. Make sure you have a clear grasp of the facts.

2. Get advice and frame your arguments in a way that their lawyer would understand. i.e identify a specific legal issue rather than just assert inaccuracy and say that you consider it a legal matter.

3. Be clear on what you are asking for: retraction, correction, apology or even compensation?

4. Interim injunctions can sometimes be obtained. If the facts are ambiguous or it is an opinion piece, your PR judgment might caution you against starting a rebuttal story that you can’t stop.

It is frustrating because with AI, it can be harder than ever to legally hold people to account.

Recently, Wired and Business Insider were duped by articles written by AI, bylined to AI fake freelancers.

WB: The Wired and Business Insider episodes are concerning. Having been the General Counsel of Conde Nast (the publisher of Wired) until very recently, I know how deeply that organisation cares about journalistic integrity and the strong stance they have taken to uphold this in the AI era.

It is only a story because we inherently trust and respect these media brands.

It is good that their team was able to identify the article, albeit, as they have acknowledged, later than they would have liked. What is critical is that they did and that they were able to do so is because they have worked hard to retain their journalism and fact checking expertise.

Doing this in house is really important because you need real affinity with the brand and the Editor in Chief to know what is important. Perhaps the best way of thinking about recent events at Wired and Business Insider is this.

We hold them, rightly, to the highest bar of media standards and ethics and want them to be our gatekeepers of all that is true and positive in the information ecosystem. They hold themselves to these standards too. Big Tech companies do not so when they serve us slop we aren’t surprised.

Who is deemed the legal ‘publisher’ of AI news sites?

WB: In practical terms, the publisher is the owner / operator of the site. However, whether that means they have or are willing to accept legal responsibility depends on their stance, and for many years the law has provided a degree of protection for owners and operators of websites.

The first place for PRs to look is the website’s terms and conditions.

New laws in both the UK and Europe that are trying to make digital publishers responsible in the way that traditional publishers always have been. However, the extent of their liability will be context dependent.

For example, US outlets would push back fiercely on this for the first amendment reasons I mentioned. The case law around legal liability for AI outputs is in its early stages and different courts in different countries have different views.

It is very much “watch this space”.

Who ensures professional standards of AI news?

WB: Generally speaking, media regulation is a very sensitive area.

When it comes to the Press, IPSO and Impress continue to be the place to go for those organisations that are members. Ofcom is also taking on a new regulatory role with respect to the Online Safety Act. They are already meeting with resistance from certain US sites.

Industry regulators, particularly in areas such as Financial Services, may be more willing to take action against those who are found to be publishing inaccurate information.

I think people still really want the truth and they want trusted information that they can rely on. That is particularly the case with B2B publishing.

Final advice for the Public Relations industry?

WB: Call your MP as soon as possible.

Tell them a story about what you need and what you value.

And then deploy your amazing PR skills in the service of maintaining the high quality information ecosystem for the next generation of humans to join your profession.

We live in a time of warp speed. The next few months for human centric content in the UK are critical.

*This interview was conducted by Greentarget UK prior to its acquisition by Infinite in June 2026.