Influencers and consultants are flogging AI programmes as “neat little tools”, but failing to read the small print could cost you and your business, writes Paul Armstrong
AI is being pushed at breakneck speed – hyped, trialled and adopted without scrutiny. Businesses of all sizes are scrambling to integrate tools that promise automation, efficiency and competitive advantage. No one can keep up, so everyone’s relying on the early-adopter crowd and Tiktok mini-mic crowd (gulp!) to help show the way. We assume these groups are neutral and have done their homework. But in the rush to adopt, and get clicks, one fundamental oversight keeps repeating: nobody is reading the fine print, and people have a tendency to not broadcast when they are getting paid.
What’s hidden in the small print
I started this article after seeing eight AI tools recommended in rapid succession in different ways – none with a single mention of any terms and conditions. A quick scan of those agreements revealed glaring red flags, from unrestricted data harvesting to questionable IP ownership clauses. Some vendors quietly claim rights over anything processed through their platform. Others reserve the right to retain user data indefinitely. And yet, businesses are trialling and implementing these tools without fully understanding the risks, often on the advice of experts who haven’t done the due diligence either.
Ignoring these details isn’t just careless, it’s a business liability waiting to happen. AI-powered workflows don’t exist in isolation, they interact with proprietary data, client-sensitive information and intellectual property. A poorly vetted tool could compromise compliance, trigger legal disputes or create data exposure risks that don’t surface until it’s too late. Equally, they could lose you clients before you start. With the agentic robot army on the horizon – where AI tools begin making autonomous decisions – businesses that fail to scrutinise their AI stack now are setting themselves up for future crises.
AI vendors operate in a largely unregulated market, and their business models reflect that. Terms and conditions often include broad data access permissions, allowing providers to store, analyse or even monetise user input. For legal, financial and consulting firms handling sensitive client information, this should be a red flag. Yet many AI consultants, hired to help businesses navigate this space, are recommending tools without fully vetting their compliance risks, offering a score or mentioning things before it’s too late and leaving IT to be the bad guy. Everyone is fully expecting people to just be good. So far (checks notes), this hasn’t worked out so well for the world when it comes to the tech industry. Without informed, independent advice, businesses may be exposing themselves to regulatory violations, third-party IP claims or massive financial risks: that fun tool your head of technology just accepted a trial of for client number one just exposed the contents of the entire email inbox which includes sensitive information from client number two. You can see how things can go bad fast.
Data ownership ambiguity is one of the biggest risks. Some AI tools retain the right to use, train on or even commercialise the data processed through their systems even if you stop using them. Particularly dangerous for businesses handling sensitive information, from proprietary research to confidential legal documents. A lack of liability protection is another key issue. Many vendors explicitly state they are not responsible for AI-generated errors, hallucinations or misinterpretations. If a business relies on an AI-generated contract, financial report, or legal document that contains errors, the liability sits squarely on the company using that tool. Is your legal team ready to deal with that?
The murky world of ‘AI consultants’
Vendor lock-in and escalating costs are another trap businesses often fall into. AI pricing structures can shift dramatically once businesses become dependent on them. Free-tier tools often include hidden provisions that allow vendors to change access conditions later, forcing costly migrations or locking businesses into unscalable models. Compliance risks can be just as chunky. Many AI tools operate in legal grey areas. Some may not meet GDPR, CCPA or industry-specific regulations, especially for data privacy and security. Businesses that assume compliance without verifying it may find themselves in breach of governance standards.
Many AI vendors position their tools as neutral services, but the reality is far more concerning. Some agreements grant AI providers excessive rights over user data, not just for product improvement but for monetisation, resale or even competitive intelligence gathering. In the short term, businesses might not notice the consequences. But if an AI vendor is acquired by a larger company, the new parent firm inherits all those data rights. A once-trusted tool could suddenly be feeding insights directly to a competitor, an advertising giant or a government entity.
There’s no guarantee that data used to train an AI tool today won’t resurface elsewhere. A legal firm using an AI-powered document generator, for example, could unknowingly contribute to a dataset that helps the tool refine contract negotiation strategies. If that tool is later acquired by a multinational consulting firm, its insights – extracted from real-world usage – could be leveraged to give clients an advantage: a scenario where businesses aren’t just paying for AI services, they’re unknowingly fueling them in ways that may not align with their own interests.
A growing number of AI consultancies position themselves as guides through the complex landscape of AI adoption. But how many of them are truly independent? AI vendors offer lucrative partner programs, incentivising consultants to push certain tools over others. The result? Businesses receive “expert” recommendations that may be driven by financial incentives rather than suitability or security. The best advice is to check and if they haven’t mentioned anything about terms and conditions, ask why three times to get to the root answer of why they aren’t concerned.
A true AI consultant, or even an influencer worth their salt, should be doing more than just listing tools, and saying how much time they are saving; they should be auditing vendor agreements, assessing risk exposure and ensuring regulatory compliance. Few do, and businesses that take their advice at face value are setting themselves up for expensive, legally dubious AI adoption strategies. In the fast-moving and hype-laidened AI world, looking before leaping isn’t just smart, it’s business critical, and we’re not even at the really juicy bit yet.
AI tools that override human control
The next wave of AI won’t just assist, it’s going to act autonomously. The shift toward agentic AI, where systems make decisions without human oversight, makes understanding AI agreements even more critical. Businesses integrating AI-driven automation today may find that their vendors have built-in mechanisms that override human control, trigger financial commitments or introduce security vulnerabilities.
Imagine an AI tool automatically signing agreements, processing financial transactions or altering customer data – all without clear accountability structures in place. If businesses are already failing to read the fine print on static AI models, what happens when these tools start operating independently? Now is the time to start planning for agentic best practices.
Businesses can’t afford to rely on AI consultants and vendors without demanding transparency and accountability. Reading the terms and conditions is tedious, but it’s non-negotiable. Any AI system handling proprietary data should be scrutinised before integration. Understanding who owns the data is critical. If a vendor retains rights to any data processed through their system, that’s a major red flag. Ensuring regulatory compliance is another essential step. AI tools must meet relevant laws, including GDPR, CCPA and industry-specific security standards. Knowing where liability falls is also crucial. AI vendors often disclaim responsibility for their outputs. If the tool makes a critical error, who pays the price? Avoiding vendor lock-in should also be a priority. AI adoption should be modular and scalable, not dependent on a single provider’s roadmap.
Businesses rushing to integrate AI without informed, independent vetting are gambling with risk they don’t even fully understand. Consultants who push AI tools without reading the fine print aren’t advising, they’re reselling. Influencers omitting crucial details in their quick videos aren’t offering innovation, they’re offloading liability onto you. Demand more and ask yourself if either party is being ignorant or if they’re being incentivised.
AI isn’t just another software wave, it’s a foundational shift in how most businesses are going to operate. Failing to understand the legal, financial, and ethical ramifications before deploying any ‘neat little tool’, as one video said, is not just an oversight – it’s a critical mistake. Reading the fine print may not be exciting, fast or instantly make you money, but in the long run it might just save you all three, and help you avoid a legal disaster.
Paul Armstrong is founder of TBD Group, runs TBD+ and author of Disruptive Technologies