AI Washing: An Emerging Topic

The phenomenon known as “AI washing,” in which companies overstate or misrepresent the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in their products and services, has gained global attention and was recently examined in a survey conducted by the Emerging Technologies and Practices Working Group of INTA’s Unfair Competition Committee.  

The survey’s primary objective was to assess whether such claims may constitute unfair competition, deceptive business practices, or other legally actionable conduct, analyzing the current legislative landscape and relevant cases across several jurisdictions, including Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, China, Europe, and the United States. 

Consumers today are increasingly confronted with claims that a product or service has been enhanced or improved using AI. In many cases, such claims appear to overstate the role of AI, and in some instances, no AI is involved at all, despite explicit statements to the contrary. 

The term “AI washing” originated with regulators who adopted it by analogy to “greenwashing,” a term widely used by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission to describe companies that present themselves as more sustainable than they truly are. Similar logic now applies to misleading claims about AI, reflecting growing concern about marketing practices that may mislead consumers and investors. 

Despite the increasing number of products and services being marketed worldwide with an “AI stamp” of quality, the comparative analysis conducted by the Working Group revealed that the subject is currently not widely debated, particularly when compared to greenwashing. To date, no groundbreaking court decisions or significant precedents have directly addressed the practice of AI washing.  

Nevertheless, the survey concluded that existing regulatory instruments, especially those targeting deceptive commercial practices, consumer protection, and unfair competition, are generally adequate to curb potential abuses.  

For example, the U.S. FTC is increasingly applying traditional rules on deceptive practices to exaggerated or unverified AI marketing claims. In the Air AI case, the FTC alleged that the conversational voice‑AI platform made false or unsubstantiated claims that people who purchased  its services would make substantial earnings, while also failing to honor refund guarantees. The FTC deemed such conduct deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.  

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also initiated several actions involving AI-related claims. For instance, in April 2025, the SEC filed a complaint against Alberto Saniger, former CEO of tech start-up Nate, Inc., alleging that Saniger solicited investments in its app—purportedly powered by AI—to complete users’ purchases and other tasks. In reality, the orders were being entered manually by contract workers in the Philippines and elsewhere. 

Overall, the existing rules and enforcement practices provide effective mechanisms to safeguard consumers and preserve market integrity, preventing unfounded AI-related claims from eroding trust and transparency in commercial relationships. Accordingly, the Working Group did not identify any legislative gaps requiring the introduction of new provisions. 

Even so, international experience shows that consumers are becoming increasingly attentive to, and skeptical of, claims relating to AI. Recently filed lawsuits against Apple Inc. over alleged misrepresentations regarding the iPhone’s AI capabilities illustrate this shift in consumer expectations. These developments highlight an evolving environment in which transparency and accuracy have become non-negotiable, rendering any attempt to exaggerate emerging features particularly risky. 

As companies face growing pressure to communicate their use of AI responsibly, transparency and truthfulness remain essential. Although no immediate legislative requirements specific to AI washing are in place, failure to meet these expectations can expose organizations to legal liability and cause lasting harm to credibility and competitiveness.  

As technology continues to advance, AI-related litigation is likely to become more frequent, presenting significant challenges for both legal practitioners and business leaders. Trademark owners should be particularly mindful.  

Because there is no uniform legal definition of AI, it is the responsibility of the brand owner to assess whether an AI-related claim may constitute an unlawful business practice under unfair competition rules. 

We note that the concept of AI washing is still in its early stages. However, given the increasing prevalence of AI in daily life, courts and legislators are likely to intervene more actively as needed to protect consumers and businesses from misleading or deceptive claims about the use of AI. Between the drafting and publication of this article, the legal landscape may well evolve.  

Counsel is encouraged to remain closely informed and to monitor this rapidly developing area of law. INTA’s Unfair Competition Committee remains committed to ongoing monitoring on behalf of INTA and its members, and we look forward to providing further reports as appropriate to update these findings.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest.

© 2026 International Trademark Association