A recent incident involving UK doctor and YouTuber Dr. Ed Hope has put a spotlight on a growing concern in the world of AI-generated answers: what happens when AI confidently publishes false and career-damaging claims?
Dr. Hope reported that Google’s AI-generated overview accused him of being suspended by the General Medical Council for selling sick notes, a story he says was entirely fabricated. According to Hope, there have been no investigations, complaints, or sanctions in his 10-year medical career.
A Completely Fabricated Narrative
In a video released this week, Hope explained that Google’s AI produced a detailed narrative alleging that he:
- Was suspended in mid-2025
- Profited from selling sick notes
- Exploited patients for financial gain
- Faced disciplinary action tied to his online presence
None of these claims are true, he said. He has nearly 500,000 subscribers, and he worries about the damage caused by an AI-generated accusation presented as fact.
After replicating the search, Hope found even more fabricated statements, including claims that he misled insurers and stole content.
“This is just about the most serious allegation you can get as a doctor,” he said. “You basically aren’t fit to practise medicine.”
How Could This Happen?
Hope believes the AI “stitched together” unrelated bits of information into a coherent but false story. For example:
- His channel is named “Sick Notes”
- He hadn’t posted on YouTube for several months
- Another UK doctor, Dr. Asif Munaf, was previously involved in a real sick-note scandal
The AI appears to have conflated these separate details and produced a fictional explanation that looked authoritative.
Why This Isn’t “Just an AI Mistake”
The issue isn’t only that the information was wrong — it’s how the information was presented.
Hope noted that Google’s AI:
- Did not hedge, speculate, or show uncertainty
- Stated the allegations as established fact
- Provided no sources or context
- Targeted a private individual, not a public controversy
- Offered no clear path for accountability or correction
The situation highlights a major gap in the current AI ecosystem: when AI generates new statements, who is responsible for their accuracy?
The Section 230 Question
A key legal question now emerging: Are AI-generated claims protected under Section 230?
Historically, Section 230 shields platforms from liability for third-party content. But AI complicates that. Some legal experts say:
- AI outputs are not third-party speech
- The model is generating new statements
- False factual claims may qualify as defamation
Courts may ultimately need to determine whether AI-generated content falls under the same protections as user-generated content.
What Google’s AI Showed
Hope also shared that Google’s AI Overview generated an extremely detailed but entirely fabricated timeline, including:
- A suspension in 2025
- Ethical issues around selling sick notes
- Public backlash and professional action
After coverage of the issue, the AI Overview changed. A later search returned a vague answer referring to an unrelated online creator and even a fictional TV show. In short: the AI began hallucinating different stories.
Why Businesses and Marketers Should Care
For marketers, SEOs, and brands, this incident reinforces an urgent truth:
AI-generated search overviews can influence user perception even when the information is false.
This has major implications for:
- Brand safety
- Online reputation management
- Trust in search results
- The liability of AI-driven platforms
As Google continues rolling out AI Overviews, and other technology companies release their AI platforms, businesses and users may need to monitor how they’re represented, not just in traditional search results, but in AI summaries that users often treat as authoritative.
