This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
AI-generated bots submitted over 90,000 fraudulent responses to a UK government consultation on tobacco and vaping, accounting for 76% of total submissions. The campaign aimed to oppose restrictions on disposable vapes by creating the appearance of a mass movement. The Department of Health and Social Care successfully identified and excluded the automated responses, preventing the manipulation of the final policy outcome.
Purported AI bots reportedly submitted 90,835 fraudulent responses to a UK government consultation on tobacco and vaping, mostly opposing disposable-vape restrictions. The submissions made up 76% of responses and distorted the apparent balance of public opinion. The Department of Health and Social Care excluded them from its analysis. The operators and underlying AI technology were not identified.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
Using AI systems to conduct large-scale disinformation campaigns, malicious surveillance, or targeted and sophisticated automated censorship and propaganda, with the aim of manipulating political processes, public opinion, and behavior.
Also classified as
The AI bots generated tens of thousands of fake, misleading responses pretending to represent genuine public feedback.
The incident involved a large-scale, coordinated campaign using AI-generated content to manipulate a public policy consultation and influence political processes.
Human
Due to a decision or action made by humans
Intentional
Due to an expected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was caused by a coordinated decision by human actors to deploy AI bots to intentionally manipulate a public consultation.
Added categories peak at 3: Substantial (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
The incident involved a coordinated campaign using AI bots to submit over 90,000 fraudulent responses to a UK government public consultation. While successfully mitigated by government controls, it represents a novel precedent of using AI to manipulate democratic feedback mechanisms and mimic grassroots movements.
The AI bots were used as tools to perform the specific, automated function of generating and submitting duplicate text responses to a consultation.
Limited Risk: The incident involves AI-generated content (automated text responses) which falls under transparency obligations for synthetic content.
The AI systems were used to generate text responses to a consultation, acting as automated writing assistants to draft feedback, though deployed maliciously at scale.
The report provides clear, quantified details about the number of bot responses, the context of the consultation, and the outcome. The roles of the actors and the AI are well-defined.
None.
Technology
AI Text Generation
AI allowed mass generation of unique-looking text to mimic humans.
Automated Bot Scripts
Scripts enabled high-frequency submissions from a small number of IPs.
Human Factors
Malicious Actor Intent
Special interests used AI to artificially inflate opposition to the ban.
Process and Methods
Open Consultation Design
The open nature of public feedback makes it vulnerable to automated spam.
Delayed Detection Systems
Bot detection occurred post-submission rather than blocking at entry.
Regulatory Environment
Lack of AI Lobbying Rules
No clear legal framework exists to penalize AI-driven policy interference.
AI system involved
An AI system was involved, but the reports do not identify it.
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
