A recent New York Times investigation has identified hundreds of AI-generated wellness personalities promoting supplements to U.S. consumers on social media, including personas presented as doctors and other health experts.
The findings have drawn attention to how longstanding rules around health claims, endorsements and advertising disclosures apply when the person delivering the message is synthetic.
Existing advertising rules still apply
Speaking to NutraIngredients, Phyllis H. Marcus, vice president at the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs, said putting a claim in the mouth of a synthetic spokesperson did not change an advertiser’s responsibilities.
“The same truth-in-advertising standards apply whether a spokesperson is human or AI-generated...AI does not create a new exception for advertisers,” she said.
“The fundamental question remains the same: What is the consumer being told, and is that message truthful,” she added.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires health-related advertising to be truthful and not misleading, and advertisers must have adequate substantiation for objective claims before disseminating them. FTC guidance also directs marketers to consider an advertisement’s overall impression, including its express and implied messages.
Marcus said advertisers therefore need to consider how consumers understand the source of an AI-generated message, rather than reviewing only the individual claims in a script.
“Advertisers must evaluate the overall impression created by the content, not just the words used...a message can be misleading if consumers are left with an inaccurate understanding of the source, even if every individual statement appears carefully crafted,” she explained.
The FTC’s rule covering consumer reviews and testimonials does not impose a blanket prohibition on AI-generated avatars or virtual influencers. The agency has said an AI-generated avatar could be considered a testimonial under the rule and could be prohibited if the underlying testimonial is fake or false.
Asa Waldstein, founder and principal at Apex Compliance, told NI this allows brands to use virtual spokespeople to communicate truthful and substantiated product information, provided they comply with the advertising rules that would otherwise apply.
“I see a legitimate and positive role for AI influencers,” Waldstein said.
“In some ways, a well-managed virtual spokesperson may be easier to control than a human influencer because the brand can preapprove the script, limit the character to substantiated claims, standardize disclosures and prevent the off-script statements that frequently create influencer risk,” he illustrated.
Fake experiences and credentials
Waldstein identified fictional personal experiences and professional credentials among the practices most likely to create problems for advertisers.
An AI persona claiming to take a supplement every day, describing a personal result or presenting itself as a doctor, nutritionist or other expert without those qualifications could create a false impression about the source of the endorsement, he said.
“The biggest mistake would be using AI to create credibility or personal experience that is not real,” Waldstein shared.
He added that identifying a character as AI-generated would not resolve an unsupported product claim or prohibited disease claim.
“A mistake would be assuming that an AI disclosure fixes everything...saying that a character is AI-generated does not allow it to make a disease or unsupported health claim acceptable,” he said.
The New York Times investigation reported finding AI-generated personas presented as doctors and other health authorities, as well as synthetic consumers that appeared to describe personal experiences with supplements.
According to Marcus, the use of apparent professional authority warranted particular attention in health and wellness advertising because consumers often rely on expertise when making decisions.
“Brands should be extremely cautious when AI personas create the appearance of expertise, credentials or authority that do not exist...in health and wellness, consumers often rely on professional expertise when making decisions,” she said.
Further, she explained advertisers should assess whether a reasonable consumer could believe that a synthetic persona had qualifications, experience or knowledge it did not possess. “If there is a risk of confusion, brands should reconsider whether that approach is appropriate,” Marcus added.
CRN calls for stronger enforcement
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) responded to the New York Times investigation on July 24, arguing that the conduct described in the report should not be characterized as representative of the dietary supplement industry.
“Fraudulent marketing, fake health experts, and illegal disease claims are not features of the dietary supplement industry...they are clear violations of the law,” CRN stated.
The trade association said deceptive marketing existed before generative AI and argued that the technology had increased the speed and ease with which bad actors could engage in such practices.
“AI didn’t create this problem—it has simply made it easier and faster for unscrupulous marketers to deceive consumers,” CRN stated.
CRN called for stronger enforcement against illegal claims, removal of deceptive sellers from online marketplaces and greater transparency. It also reiterated its support for a mandatory FDA product registry, additional resources for FDA and FTC enforcement and greater accountability across digital marketplaces.
Waldstein also viewed existing U.S. advertising rules as a workable foundation for AI-generated marketing.
“The law does not need to mention every new technology by name to apply to it,” he said.
“However, companies should expect more specific disclosure requirements and state-level rules as AI marketing becomes more common,” he added.
Brands weigh AI against consumer trust
Scott Guthrie, director general of the UK-based Influencer Marketing Trade Body (IMTB), told NI that brands considering AI influencers face commercial and ethical questions in addition to regulatory requirements.
“Creator marketing excels compared with other advertising channels because of the authenticity of the content shared from creator to consumer,” Guthrie said.
“AI influencers risk losing that bond,” he added.
Guthrie cited research released by The Harris Poll with the 4As and Infillion in 2026, which found that 78% of consumers surveyed said AI made advertising feel less authentic, while 73% said they would be less likely to trust an advertisement they suspected was AI-generated. Another 63% said they would be less likely to purchase from a brand using AI-generated advertising.
He also pointed to an April 2025 World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) survey of 33 respondents representing 27 multinational brands. The survey found that 96% cited consumer trust and acceptance among their concerns about AI influencers.
The survey also identified reasons brands were considering the technology, with 77% of respondents citing cost efficiencies and 58% citing scalability as potential benefits.
Guthrie noted that AI influencers could serve functions such as virtual product try-ons and answering consumer questions, but “human influencers bring cultural relevance to brands and authenticity that can’t be replicated by AI,” he said.
In the UK, the IMTB’s influencer marketing code of conduct, co-owned with the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, calls for brands and agencies to clearly declare the use of AI influencers in advertising. Supplement advertising is also subject to the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, including its provisions covering foods, food supplements and associated nutrition and health claims.
Building an AI marketing policy
Waldstein recommended that companies using AI-generated influencers establish policies governing their use before publishing content.
Such policies should specify how an AI persona is identified, which claims it can make, whether it can speak in the first person, which disclosures are required and who must approve the content, he said.
He also recommended maintaining human oversight rather than allowing AI personas to generate and publish marketing content independently.
Marcus similarly recommended that marketing, legal and compliance teams work together early in the process. She said companies should clearly identify AI-generated content, substantiate product claims and avoid creating impressions of personal experience or expertise that do not exist.
Guthrie said he expected human creators to retain an important role as AI-generated content becomes more common, particularly because audiences form relationships with individual people and their viewpoints.
“Audiences follow people and distinct viewpoints,” he said.
“Human content creators will play an increasingly important role as credible voices providing the antidote to AI-driven content,” he added, “it’ll shift the conversation from what’s being said to who said it.”
