- The Department of Health and Social Care identified 90,835 of 118,756 submissions as fraudulent
- After automated responses were excluded, 79.6 per cent of valid respondents supported restrictions on disposable vape sales
- Researchers warn increasingly sophisticated bots could threaten the integrity of future public consultations
Artificial intelligence bots generated more than three-quarters of responses to a UK government consultation on tobacco and vaping restrictions, in what researchers describe as the first documented instance of large-scale automated interference in a formal public health consultation.
A study published in the journal Tobacco Control found that 90,835 of the 118,756 submissions received during the 2023 consultation on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill were identified as fraudulent by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
The automated responses overwhelmingly opposed proposed restrictions on disposable vape sales. The department excluded them from its consultation findings, meaning they were not considered in the final decision-making process.
Researchers Dr Nason Maani of the University of Edinburgh and Professor Anna Gilmore of the University of Bath examined published consultation reports and information obtained through Freedom of Information requests.
Their analysis found that all but two of the automated submissions targeted a single multiple-choice question opposing restrictions on disposable vapes. The responses were often duplicated and submitted at high frequency from a small number of IP addresses, according to the DHSC.
The submissions also showed a consistent pattern in how respondents said they had heard about the consultation, with the same number identifying social media as their source.
Once the fraudulent responses were excluded, 79.6 per cent of valid respondents supported restrictions on disposable vape sales. The researchers said the volume of automated submissions could have substantially distorted the apparent balance of public opinion had the responses not been detected.
The study described the episode as a potential example of coordinated interference in public policymaking. However, the researchers said the campaign’s source, backing and precise intentions were not known.
Dr Maani warned that future attempts could become harder to identify as automated tools grow more sophisticated. Such campaigns could allow a small number of powerful interests to appear to represent a much larger public movement.
Safeguards under scrutiny
The findings have raised concerns about the vulnerability of government consultations, which are used to gather public views before policy decisions are made.
Caroline Cerny, deputy chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said the use of AI bots to overwhelm a health consultation was deeply concerning.
She highlighted the tobacco industry’s history of seeking to influence public health regulation and warned that technological advances could be used to advance commercial interests.
Azzurra Moores, associate director for information ecosystems at thinktank Demos, said interference could undermine trust in the consultation process. Stronger screening and greater transparency would help, she said, although safeguards must not make it harder for genuine members of the public to participate.
The DHSC said its existing controls had worked effectively to identify and remove the fraudulent submissions.
A spokesperson said the consultation had helped inform the government’s action to create a smoke-free generation and that it would remain alert to future attempts to manipulate public consultations.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act received Royal Assent in April 2026 and includes restrictions on the sale and supply of disposable vapes, alongside measures intended to prevent future generations from taking up smoking.
The researchers warned that other consultations could be more vulnerable, particularly where government departments lack the resources or screening systems needed to identify automated interference. They called for stronger detection capabilities and governance safeguards to protect the integrity of public health policymaking.
