PwC Caught Using AI-Generated Reports With Fake Citations and Fabricated Claims

PwC published 'thought leadership' reports marred by AI hallucinations

PwC published reports on AI and electric vehicles riddled with fake footnotes, misattributed claims and unverifiable information, the latest example of a Big Four firm's slapdash use of AI-generated content. The AI hallucinations were contained in "thought leadership" reports designed to drum up consulting work for partners in the Middle East, according to an investigation by researchers at GPTZero verified by the FT. The discovery of AI-generated errors risks embarrassing consulting firms such as PwC that are marketing their services as advisers to companies adopting the technology, including on how to use it responsibly and implement policies to avoid errors. GPTZero's earlier investigations led Big Four rivals EY and KPMG to retract reports that also appeared to include hallucinations. The research group identified four reports PwC Middle East produced over the past two years whose text appeared to have been written with particularly heavy help from AI and whose footnotes revealed shaky foundations. The reports included a playbook for corporate use of "agentic" autonomous AI bots, a guide for governments on how to improve public services and market predictions for electric and autonomous vehicles across the region. Many of the citations in the reports are problematic in some manner, GPTZero researchers found. Often they link to web pages that do not contain the evidence they purport to and some to pages that do not exist. An academic paper on air quality in Riyadh appears to have been hallucinated entirely by AI, because there is no trace of the study in the journal referenced or by the authors to whom it is attributed. Several more footnotes refer to unusual sources. For example, a teenage blogger with 280 followers on Medium is cited as PwC's source for information about a JPMorgan initiative it calls a "real world success story" of agentic AI. The initiative -- in which the bank automated the review of commercial loan agreements, saving hundreds of thousands of hours of human work -- was first reported in 2017, five years before ChatGPT launched the era of generative AI. PwC Middle East told the FT it "takes the accuracy of our published research seriously and is updating a limited number of supporting citations" in the identified reports. "Consistent with our approach to responsible AI, we have quality control processes for research and content development we expect all our people to adhere to," it added, without addressing how the errors were included in the reports. In the past few years, the Big Four have pumped out hundreds of thought-leadership pieces on AI to help attract clients, while also exhorting staff to use the technology themselves to speed up and improve their work. The chaotic signposting of source material in the four PwC Middle East reports is symptomatic of AI-generated research, said Paul Esau, researcher at GPTZero. In one tell-tale sign, a claim that human error is responsible for 90 per cent of traffic accidents is mentioned in three different places in one report, Esau said, the first with a footnote, the second without, and the third with two footnotes -- each footnote citing a different source. "This claim isn't fake, but no human is going to cite the same fact three times in two pages using three different sources," he said. One report fails to properly cite other PwC work. It references a PwC survey of Middle Eastern chief executives, of whom 70 per cent said generative AI will significantly affect their business, but the accompanying footnote links to a media report that makes no mention of the survey. Another footnote betrays the use of AI. The URL for a media report on cyber security threats to the energy sector includes "utm_source=chatgpt.com".

PwC just got caught trying to pass AI slop as authentic research

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. Facepalm: PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the world's four largest accounting firms alongside EY, KPMG, and Deloitte, has landed in hot water after it was found to have published at least four reports riddled with AI hallucinations, fabricated citations, and fake footnotes. The reports were issued by PwC Middle East between 2024 and 2026 and were flagged as AI-generated by GPTZero, an AI detector and plagiarism checker. The AI hallucinations were confirmed by multiple leading publications, including the Financial Times. The so-called "Thought Leadership" reports were intended to articulate PwC's insights into some of the fastest-growing businesses in the Middle East, including agentic AI, public services, and electric vehicles. However, the bizarre turn of events suggests that the reports themselves were AI-generated. One of the contentious reports claimed that an internal PwC survey found that nearly 70% of CEOs in the region believed generative AI would redefine their business landscape in the near future. However, a footnote in the document linked to an article that did not cite any such survey. Another footnote, this time in a cybersecurity report, included a link containing the tracking tag "utm_source=chatgpt.com," leaving very little doubt about its source. In one particularly egregious case, a report cited a Medium blog post by a teenager with 280 followers as the sole source for a "real-world success story" about an AI deployment initiative by JPMorgan. According to the report, the initiative automated commercial loan agreement reviews, saving the company millions of dollars and thousands of hours of human work. However, there was just one problem: JPMorgan's project actually took place in 2017, years before ChatGPT or any other public-facing AI chatbot was launched. The string of errors, unfortunately, did not end there. One report on EVs cited a study on air quality in Riyadh that could not be traced to any journal, while another contained footnotes that led to broken webpages. Another EV report claimed on at least three separate occasions that 90% of road accidents are caused by human error. However, the report cited two different studies for two of those claims and provided no attribution at all for the third. Speaking to the FT, GPTZero policy analyst Paul Esau admitted that the data on road accidents isn't fake but argued that "no human is going to cite the same fact three times in two pages using three different sources." Esau explained that "the chaotic signposting of source material is symptomatic of AI-generated research," adding that it is particularly ironic that PwC should make such blunders, given that the company markets itself as an authority on how to use AI responsibly and avoid exactly these types of errors. It is worth noting that PwC rivals EY and KPMG were also caught passing off AI-generated reports as their own and had to retract those papers after they were flagged by GPTZero. Like its rivals, PwC also acknowledged its mistake and vowed to change its policies to avoid similar faux pas in the future. In a statement, PwC Middle East said it "takes the accuracy of our published research seriously" and is "updating a limited number of supporting citations."

PwC is the latest Big Four firm caught publishing AI slop

PwC published four Middle East reports stuffed with fake footnotes and made-up sources, the telltale signs of AI hallucination, and one footnote URL literally ended in "chatgpt.com." It is the fourth Big Four firm caught after KPMG, EY and Deloitte, and it happened the same week PwC's own US chief was warning companies not to misuse AI. The world's biggest consultancies are selling companies expensive advice on how to adopt AI without getting burned. Their own reports keep getting burned. PwC is the latest to be caught. Four of its Middle East "thought leadership" reports were a mess, the Financial Times reported. The reports, on AI and electric vehicles, carried fake footnotes, misattributed claims and made-up sources. The research group GPTZero flagged the errors as AI hallucinations, and the FT verified them. A footnote that ended in 'chatgpt.com' The giveaways were not subtle. One report cited a PwC survey claiming 70% of Middle East chief executives expect generative AI to reshape their business. The footnote linked to a news article that never mentioned the survey. Another footnote's web address still carried the tag "utm_source=chatgpt.com." "The chaotic signposting of source material is symptomatic of AI-generated research," GPTZero's Paul Esau told the FT. This is a firm that markets itself as an adviser on using AI responsibly, including how to avoid exactly these errors. All four, now PwC is not alone. It completes an unwanted set. GPTZero's earlier work pushed KPMG to pull an October report. It had made false claims about AI use at UBS, the UK's NHS and Transport for London. EY retracted a study last month over fake footnotes. Deloitte has twice slipped AI fabrications into government reports, including a $1.6m health plan in Canada that cited papers which do not exist. The pattern repeats each time. The Big Four have pumped out hundreds of AI thought-leadership pieces to win clients, while pushing their own staff to use AI to work faster. The result is AI slop with a blue-chip logo on it. Do as we say The timing is almost too neat. The same week, PwC's US chief executive Paul Griggs was telling Business Insider where companies go wrong with AI. One trap he named was bolting it onto broken processes. "All AI is going to do for you is tell you how bad your messy process really is," Griggs said. His own firm just proved him right. Marking their own homework The awkward part is what it says about the product. These firms charge premium rates for judgment and rigour. Yet no one appears to have checked whether the sources were real. It is the same gap that lets AI-written code ship with security holes: the output looks right, so nobody looks closer. It also cuts against the sales pitch. Consultants are among the loudest voices telling clients AI will transform their work. Their own reports show how it can quietly corrupt it, and how the hype outruns the safe use. The hallucinations are the tell, and a detector keeps finding them. The firms keep publishing anyway.

Top Consulting Group PwC Caught Using AI on "Thought Leadership" Report About AI, Resulting in Corporate Document Filled With Bizarre Hallucinations

Can't-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech PwC, one of the "Big Four" consulting firms, has been caught red-handed publishing "thought leadership" reports about AI riddled with lazy and easily-spotted hallucinations. As the Financial Times reports, four reports published between 2024 and 2026, were meant to solicit consulting work for partners in the Middle East. But as investigators from AI detector firm GPTZero found, the reports were an utter mess, chock full of "hallucinated (vibe) citations, fabricated claims, and incomprehensible drafting and formatting decisions." The offending reports contained "claims that are unrelated to or contradicted by the cited source." For instance, a 2025 report included an entire section about a framework known as "Citizen Pulse," which it alleged was being deployed by governments around the world. However, GPTZero found that the framework didn't actually exist and was entirely hallucinated by an AI, including supporting citations. The findings highlight just how pervasive AI hallucinations have become, from lawyers being reprimanded by judges after being caught including fake legal citations in court documents to entire academic fields being inundated with dubious AI-generated papers. Even prestigious consulting firms are providing their clients with shoddy and entirely unverified slop, raising plenty of uncomfortable questions about the quality of their professional services. Just last month, another Big Four firm, KPMG, was caught including copious amounts of AI hallucinations in a report about how to integrate AI agents "across investment advisory, risk management and compliance monitoring." The latest case is particularly egregious considering several of PwC's slop-heavy reports were explicitly about "agentic" AI bots, including a guide for governments on how to improve public services for autonomous vehicles. The extent of the slop is baffling. One of the PwC reports included a footnote referencing a teenage blogger on Medium with 280 followers being cited as a source for a JPMorgan agentic AI initiative. GPTZero researcher Paul Esau found that a different PwC report had cited the same (correct) claim that human error is responsible for 90 percent of traffic accidents three times in just two pages, while using three different sources, something that "no human" would do, as he told the FT. In response, PwC downplayed the findings and failed to take accountability. In a statement to the newspaper, PwC Middle East claimed that it "takes the accuracy of our published research seriously and is updating a limited number of supporting citations" in the reports. "Consistent with our approach to responsible AI, we have quality control processes for research and content development we expect all our people to adhere to." More on hallucinations: Consulting Firm's Report on How Awesome AI Is Found to Contain Idiotic AI Hallucinations

AI Hallucinations Find Their Way into a PwC Report on Artificial Intelligence

In recent times, several consulting firms were caught red-handed while using AI to generate reports and citations that were proved false by fact-checkers What's with artificial intelligence and the "Big Four" accounting and consulting companies? In the past, we saw instances of these thought-leaders being led astray by AI generated content that left them red-faced and seeking cover. Looks like this trend isn't ending anytime soon as now it is the turn of PwC to pass off AI hallucinations as thought leadership. A report published by the Financial Times says four reports published between 2024 and 2026, largely meant to pitch consulting work for partners in West Asia were found to contain full of hallucinated citations, fabricated claims, and incomprehensible drafting and formatting. The irony is that some of these reports were pitching AI as a magic wand solution. GPTZero, an AI detection model provider, says over the past year they had used a Hallucination Check tool uncover hallucinated citations in government reports, academic papers submitted to prestigious conferences on AI and machine learning and on research products from Deloitte, EY, and KPMG among others. The probe into four reports revealed a correlation between hallucinated citations, high AI detection scores, and fabricated claims, the company says. "In other words, the four PwC Middle East reports that are flagged as suspicious by GPTZero's Hallucination Check tool also tend to be flagged as "AI-generated" or "Mixed" by our AI Detector and tend to contain claims that are unrelated to or contradicted by the cited source." The reports contained claims that were unrelated to or contradicted by the cited source with one report dated 2025 including a full section about the Citizen Pulse framework of PwC being deployed by governments across the world. However, in actuality the framework did not actually exist and was entirely hallucinated by AI, including the supporting citations. In response, PwC noted in a statement to the FT that the company "takes the accuracy of our published research seriously and is updating a limited number of supporting citations" in the reports. "Consistent with our approach to responsible AI, we have quality control processes for research and content development we expect all our people to adhere to." Meanwhile, GPTZero also questioned the citations made in the reports. "The condensed citation style used by many consulting firms makes source matching difficult. Judging from the reports we investigated, PwC Middle East doesn't enforce a specific citation style across all publications, or consistently standardize formatting within a single publication," it said. Citing another report, the review said several of the citations were using titles pulled from the source metadata rather than the human-visible title. "These references are differentiated by the use of the typographic symbol "|" to separate components," the report said. In recent times, AI hallucinations have found their way into several works including lawyers being reprimanded by judges after being caught using fake legal citations in the documents presented before the courts. There have also been several incidents of entire academic fields being inundated with dubious AI-generated papers. More recently, another Big-Four company KPMG was caught adding massive amounts of AI hallucinations in a report on how to integrate AI agents across investment advisory, risk management and compliance monitoring. Titled "Redefining excellence in the age of agentic AI," the report was released in October by KPMG, making the mishap more embarrassing as the report was calling out what it claimed as the mindless enthusiasm for AI among Wall Street professionals. Once again this report was called out by the Financial Times. The latest case with PwC has raised questions about the unbridled use of AI in several slop-heavy reports of the consulting firm about agentic AI bots. In fact, one of the reports even referenced a footnote to a teenage blogger's posts on Medium that has 280 followers and was cited as a source for JP Morgan's agentic AI initiative. The unsavoury part of this report is that a GPTZero researcher claimed latter that another report from PwC had actually cited the same claim to suggest that human error was responsible for 90% of traffic accidents thrice in two pages, but with three different sources.

PwC Joins the Race of AI Mistakes

An investigation found that PwC Middle East's AI reports contained fabricated references, raising fresh concerns about how businesses use AI and why human fact-checking still matters. PwC Middle East is under scrutiny after an investigation found that several AI-assisted reports contained references that did not exist. The issue came to light after readers tried to verify the sources and found that many could not be traced. Ironically, these reports were made to advise businesses and governments on AI, autonomous agents and the future of electric vehicles. According to research by GPTZero, reports were , fake citations, broken links, and academic studies that never existed. During the research, the researchers found, in one instance, the source of the URL says, 'utm_source=chatgpt.com.' PwC Middle East said it is reviewing the matter and is fact-checking each of its reports. Previously, GTPZero has caught similar AI-generated reports published by KPMG and EY, which had . The case has once again highlighted one of AI's biggest weaknesses. These systems can produce fluent and convincing text, but they can also invent facts or references if their answers are not carefully checked. This is why many experts say AI should support human work, not replace it.