The Rise of AI-Informed Customer Complaints

Artificial intelligence is changing—and challenging—all different facets of business. And AI will continue to evolve the way people compile, use and communicate information. With increasing frequency, AI is contributing to a surge in customers and businesses using the technology to craft a pseudo-legal argument when seeking resolution for an issue.  

Of course, complaints and requests for relief are not new and have always been an embedded risk of doing business. Best practices involve addressing complaints with factual responses and reasonable resolution efforts. Now with the rise of AI, complaints and demands increasingly take the shape of a superficially convincing legal argument, often in pursuit of an excessive resolution. Anyone can sound like a lawyer using AI to dress up their demand for relief. But it is crucial to remember the only thing that has changed is the complexity of the demand, not the entitlement.  

AI-written complaints 

Using legal terms, citing to laws, court opinions and other legal authorities, anyone can use AI to craft a compelling demand letter, insisting that established law is on their side. Businesses are seeing an influx of formal and informal complaints written using AI, including demands for replacement products or work, or even monetary demands for reimbursement or damages. At first glance, the legalese and citations may suggest an otherwise routine business complaint has instantly escalated to a legitimate litigation threat. The person making the demand is often emboldened by the belief that the referenced legal support unequivocally applies to their circumstance.  

Additionally, AI may suggest to a person seeking support for their claim that a more extreme remedy is owed. Typically, statutes outline available remedies, but the facts of a particular claim will determine the actual extent of the remedy for that specific claim, if a claimant were to prevail in court.  

For example, a claim for fraud may entitle a successful claimant to increased or “punitive” damages, but proof in a court of law is required for a fraud claimant to recover these types of damages. Using AI support, a person may interpret their entitlement to the most extreme remedies available under a given law and use this perceived support to make an unwarranted demand. Even where extreme circumstances do not exist for the person making the claim, the AI-generated information may encourage the belief that maximum recovery is owed, and the customer will accept nothing less.  

The ease with which a person can input basic facts and queries to generate a formal demand letter translates to more people making these demands. Consequently, more complaints correspond to an increased business cost of engaging internal personnel or retaining external resources to handle and respond. In addition, multiple rounds of communication may be required to address threatened claims. Once a customer complaint has been initiated, anticipate follow-up communications if a request is partially or fully denied, likely also relying on AI to support the continued demand for a remedy.  

While developing effective response strategies comes at a cost to your business, these communications will also later serve as evidence should the claim advance to formal litigation. 

Mitigate the impact 

So, what can be done to mitigate the impact? First, it is essential to remember that responding to these requests is no different than handling complaints in pre-AI days. Anyone can write a letter, an email or even file a formal legal complaint. What has changed is the access to information. What has not changed is the sophistication required to determine application of the law to a specific set of facts, and the counter-positions and facts that may not have been examined. AI can identify potentially applicable legal support for a claim, but it cannot generate a confirmed outcome should the matter proceed to a court.  

Your company’s initial response to a complaint or demand is your opportunity to address inaccuracies in both facts and the law. Investigate the claim history and communications to determine what happened. Review applicable contracts and warranties to confirm the terms, entitlements and exclusions. As with any demand, a customer’s request cannot be dismissed automatically; rather, it should be evaluated in light of the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The potentially applicable legal bases for a demand may even be on point and worth considering in early resolution efforts.  

This is a benefit if it is determined that a potential claimant has a legitimate claim. In that case, coordinated efforts to resolve should be pursued at the earliest possible time to limit further legal exposure that may exist regardless of how the information was obtained. You can even use AI to develop your response, being careful to confirm accuracy and alignment with your business objectives. 

Where a customer seeks a remedy to which they are not entitled, do not be instantly swayed by references to laws or legal authorities that may not apply. Do not simply accept the position at face value because it sounds plausible. Rather, qualified analysis is recommended. For example, if the demand relies on a law that applies to a purchaser of a consumer product, consider the possibility that the person making the demand may not be entitled to pursue their claim under the referenced statute. Similarly, your product warranty may directly address a customer’s claim and should be enforced if the customer seeks a remedy expressly excluded by the warranty’s terms. 

Align responses 

Any demand, whether communicated using AI or not, requires an informed, rational response that aligns with relevant contracts, warranties and policies, taking into account your company’s best practices and approach to risk management. Where there is a threatened legal action, it is advisable to consult your legal counsel to determine how to best proceed and confirm a proposed response. However, an initial legal threat is no cause for alarm as you investigate and explore paths to resolution.  

Remember, as a developing technology, AI is not always accurate and relies upon the validity and scope of the information being provided. There are also circumstances in which AI has been shown to reflect bias toward the user. This is not unlike how any legal dispute may involve conflicting positions where there are arguments in favor and against a particular position based on the same set of facts. AI certainly provides a “squeaky wheel” customer with more information at their disposal. Ultimately, it is just a new tool, but it doesn’t change the entitlement to recovery.