Thursday, October 29, 2026
How reliable is public consultation in the age of AI?
In many ways the dawn of an online society has made this process much easier, though there is the unresolved issue of the technically-challenged and those who do not have access to computers to contend with, something that nobody appears to have got to grips with yet. However, just how reliable is this sort of consultation?
The Mirror reports that a study has found that a public consultation on new laws to curb the sale of vapes was hijacked by bots in a "co-ordinated campaign" to "manipulate" the result.
The paper says that researchers found that AI robots accounted for more than three quarters of responses to a Government consultation on plans to restrict the sale of disposable vapes. They generated replies which were "overwhelmingly targeted" at opposing measures around disposable e-cigarettes:
Researchers believe it is the first instance of large-scale, automated interference in a formal, public health consultation. Experts made the discovery when they analysed 118,756 responses to a consultation in October 2023 for the Tobacco and Vapes Act.
The University of Edinburgh study said the Department of Health and Social Care had identified 76% - more than 90,000 - as fraudulent using bot-detection methods. Almost all bot-generated responses targeted multiple choice questions opposing plans to restrict sales of disposable vapes. The same number reported they had learnt of the consultation on social media.
After the bot responses were excluded, some 79.6% of valid responses supported plans around disposable vapes. Researchers said: "This appears to be the first documented instance of large-scale, automated interference in a formal, public health policy consultation.
"The scale and directional consistency of bot responses suggest a co-ordinated campaign, consistent with prior evidence of tobacco industry efforts to manipulate public consultations through mass co-ordinated submissions."
They added that is it "not possible to ascertain the commercial origins of such a campaign", but highlighted that "transnational tobacco companies have sought to swamp earlier public consultations with favourable responses, using mass recruitment campaigns and postcard submissions".
Experts also warned that bolstering detection capacity and safeguards "will be essential" as "bot sophistication increases". They said: "While in this instance these submissions were screened and excluded, developments in bots require a constant evolution of screening tools, and such campaigns often take place with little or no public awareness, particularly in areas such as vaping regulation, which remains an active topic of policy discussion in many geographic contexts.
"Consultations at other levels, or in other contexts where resources are more restricted and there is a lack of capacity to screen such findings, may be at greater risk of influence." A DHSC spokesperson said: "We always have robust controls in place to prevent the manipulation of our public consultations and those controls worked effectively in this case.
"As a result, the fake responses were removed and the consultation helped inform the landmark action we are taking to create a smoke-free generation. We will remain alert to interference of this kind in future consultation processes and we will not be deterred from doing what is necessary to promote healthier living."
The Tobacco and Vapes Act gained Royal Assent in April, making it illegal to ever sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after January 1 2009. It also included a ban on the sale of disposable vapes - which came into effect in June last year - as well as measures to restrict the flavours and marketing of e-cigarettes.
The aim was to create a smoke-free generation. Speaking at the time, the then-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, said: "This legislation marks a turning point for the nation’s health. By ending the cycle of tobacco addiction for future generations, we are taking one of the boldest steps in decades to prevent illness before it even begins.
The abuse was caught this time, but as artificial intelligence gets more and more sophisticated, can we be confident that it will be exposed in the future? It may well be that public bodies need to go back to the drawing board or they might find themselves exclusively talking to computers with the rest of us on the side-lines, oblivious to their plans.
