FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Data protection consultants
Consultants can use AI to draft privacy notices and AI transparency statements, but the notice must describe what the client actually does. Missing automated decision disclosures or a wrong lawful basis can lead to complaints, ICO action and a claim against the drafter.
Part of: AI in Data protection consultants
In short
Privacy notices are a core document for consultants, and generative AI may draft first versions. The risk is a notice that reads well but does not match the processing: AI uses left out, a lawful basis that cannot apply, or no explanation of significant automated decisions. Since 5 February 2026, Article 22C requires individuals to receive information about solely automated significant decisions, and recognised legitimate interests cannot support those decisions. The ICO's Explaining decisions made with AI guidance sets expectations for explanations. A client that relies on an inaccurate notice may look to its adviser. PI usually responds, subject to the wording.
A consultant gathers information about the client's processing, often from a questionnaire or data map, and produces a privacy notice, a cookie notice or an AI transparency statement. Generative AI can turn that material into readable text in minutes and is good at plain English. It is less good at accuracy. It will describe the processing it expects a business of that type to carry out, add purposes the client does not have, and pick lawful bases that sound plausible.
AI transparency statements are a newer request. Clients deploying chatbots, scoring tools or AI features in their products want to explain them to customers. The ICO's Explaining decisions made with AI guidance is the main reference for how much to say and how.
Transparency is a clear regulatory priority. In October 2026 the ICO reported that ten foundation model developers had committed to clearer transparency information.
Illustrative scenario: a consultant uses a generative AI chatbot to update an online lender's privacy notice. The draft describes "automated checks reviewed by our team" and cites recognised legitimate interests for credit decisions. In fact, most declines are issued automatically. Customers who are declined complain that they were never told a computer decided, and the ICO makes enquiries. The client has to rewrite the notice, build the Article 22C safeguards and revisit its lawful basis, and then claims its costs from the consultant.
Other errors include copying a competitor's notice structure that does not fit, omitting AI vendors as recipients, and failing to mention international transfers to an AI provider. A notice can also go stale: the client adds an AI feature months after the notice was written, and nobody updates it.
A negligently drafted notice is a professional services error, and PI usually responds to the client's claim for its costs and losses, subject to the terms. Causation may be contested: a notice describes processing, so the underlying problem may be the processing rather than the words. If the client's system was non-compliant regardless of the notice, the consultant's liability may be limited to the notice itself. Fines raise separate issues; see are AI regulatory fines insurable? On the wider risk of AI-generated errors, see AI hallucination liability.
Apex arranges PI for data protection consultants. A broker can review how your policy treats drafting work and AI-assisted documents; see the data protection consultants' AI hub.
They must describe the processing accurately, including purposes, lawful bases, recipients and transfers. Where AI is part of that processing, and especially where it makes significant decisions about people, the notice should explain it. Article 22C requires information about solely automated significant decisions.
No. Article 22B prevents solely automated significant decisions from relying on recognised legitimate interests. A notice that does so is likely to reflect a wrong lawful basis for the processing itself.
Using AI is not the problem. The risk is accepting text that describes typical processing rather than the client's actual processing. Every statement should be checked against what the client does.
The client, as controller, is answerable to the ICO and individuals. If the inaccuracy came from negligent drafting, the client may claim against the consultant, and PI usually responds subject to the policy terms.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
