James Dixon: Finance businesses risk an AI backlash in 2026

The rapid growth of AI in 2025 has seen the technology infiltrate almost every part of business life. There have been clear benefits, but there are also signs that the tide is turning for some uses of AI in the finance industry.

By the middle of the year, sentiment began to shift. Attention moved away from what AI could do, towards the gaps it exposed — particularly in finance, where years of hard-won knowledge and professional expertise cannot easily be replaced.

Across many disciplines, 2025 started with the question: “How can AI make life easier and drive success?” That soon mutated into: “How far can we push AI to cut corners?”

There is little doubt we are heading into another AI-dominated 12 months. Consumer behaviour has already changed, with organic search journeys reshaped by AI overviews and large language model visibility becoming a key factor in the digital landscape.

But a re-evaluation now feels inevitable, following growing evidence of misuse over the past year.

With any product or transaction, trust is fundamental to a brand’s credibility and long-term success. In 2025, that trust has been stretched to breaking point, particularly in the media, where journalists have uncovered the shady practice of invented AI “experts” being pushed by brands and agencies eager to gain authority in key areas.

AI tools were correct just 56% of the time, deceptive or misleading in 27% of cases, and wrong in 17%

Ultimately, this lack of trust is exposed by the very audience brands are trying to reach, as holes are quickly picked in insights supplied by non-expert AI. This was highlighted in our recent financial study, which uncovered widespread inaccuracies in AI-generated responses.

Of the 100 questions we asked on topics ranging from savings and housing to retirement, AI tools were correct just 56% of the time, deceptive or misleading in 27% of cases, and wrong in 17%. On investing and pensions, AI answered 52% of questions incorrectly.

Beyond reputational risk, there are also consequences for brand visibility on Google. The search giant’s emphasis on E-E-A-T — experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness — is severely undermined when brands rely on fabricated AI experts.

When journalists, the public and rival firms respond by calling on real, experienced voices to debunk questionable content, the signals sent to Google are clear: these brands are not reliable sources of information. The result is falling organic search visibility and a damaged digital footprint.

However advanced AI becomes, if the person asking the question lacks depth, the answer will miss the mark too

All of this underlines a simple truth: there can be no compromise when it comes to expertise in a complex, nuanced industry shaped by global forces, from technology to tariffs.

Fortunately — or unfortunately, depending on your view — technology providers are starting to rein in abuse. OpenAI has strengthened its stance on AI being used to dispense legal and medical advice. Finance, however, has yet to receive the same scrutiny, and there are still agencies that will only abandon bad practice once they have run out of road.

That makes the issue particularly inexcusable in financial services, where the worlds of branding, organic search and advice share one vital element: trust.

When people are making decisions about their savings or pensions, they want reassurance that guidance comes from an experienced authority who understands the latest financial and business trends — not from a novice armed with a prompt. However advanced AI becomes, if the person asking the question lacks depth, the answer will miss the mark too.

AI tops financial adviser concerns but adoption lags behind

This hunger for real-life expertise is only set to grow after a year in which journalists were bombarded with faceless spokespersons who had never previously commented, written advice, or left any meaningful digital footprint.

Sophie Buchan, a finance and lifestyle writer at Reach PLC, recently shared how this tactic has become depressingly common.

“This morning I’ve had several fake PRs contact me,” she said. “At first, the emails seem legit, and they are subjects we would write about.

“However, on closer inspection, they’re far from real. They claim the expert is legitimate — LinkedIn attached and all — yet when you look at their social media, their accounts are either suspended, there’s no information at all, or the ‘expert’ LinkedIn profile picture is AI.”

As Buchan points out, any uncertainty over the source means the insight — and the so-called expert — is simply ignored.

LLMs are still in their infancy, but the formula for trusted news has long been established

The consequences go beyond missed media opportunities. Finance brands that persist with these tactics risk becoming synonymous with untrustworthy content, and even blacklisted by journalists.

That is why so much effort goes into building banks of credible commentary, preparing proper promotional material and, crucially, developing real relationships between experts and the journalists covering these vital topics.

LLMs are still in their infancy, but the formula for trusted news has long been established. Authoritative voices matter — even more so in an age of misinformation. As 2026 approaches, media scrutiny is only likely to intensify.

For finance brands chasing short-term coverage wins at the expense of credibility, the long-term cost to reputation could be far higher than they expect.

James Dixon is a director at Toucan International