Survey Links Unverified AI Guidance to Higher Regulatory Fines
Respondents linked unchecked AI output to incorrect filings, missed deadlines and failed audits, and teams that put sensitive data into personal AI tools reported problems far more often.
- By Danielle Naidu
- Oct 14, 2026
Among compliance leaders surveyed by regulatory intelligence company Enhesa, teams that never verify AI-generated regulatory guidance were nearly three times as likely to report a regulatory fine as teams that do, 37% compared with 13%.
Forty percent said their teams always or often act on guidance produced by AI without an expert reviewing it. The most common reasons were pressure for speed and efficiency (47%), trust in the tool's accuracy (42%) and urgent regulatory deadlines (34%).
More than half of respondents, 56%, reported at least one negative outcome tied to AI output that was wrong or unverified. Over the past 12 months, those included incorrect filings (30%), regulatory fines (21%), missed deadlines (20%) and failed audits (18%). Teams that rarely or never skip expert review reported fines at 7%, compared with 27% of all other teams.
Seventy-six percent of teams use AI across their whole compliance function or let it run fully autonomously on at least one core task. Among the 37% using fully autonomous or agentic AI on at least one task, 71% reported a negative outcome, compared with 47% of the rest.
In the past year, 64% of teams entered sensitive material into personal or noncorporate AI tools. Those teams reported negative outcomes at a rate of 82%, compared with 9% of teams that entered no such material.
Most respondents said they want AI answers they can defend. Ninety-one percent said it is essential for AI output to cite its sources before they act on it, and 88% want a complete record of how the AI arrived at its answer. Only 32% said they were very confident their team could justify an AI-driven compliance decision.
Respondents also reported strain from regulatory change. Ninety percent cited at least one business impact in the past year, including higher legal or consulting costs (53%), much heavier workloads (41%) and delayed product launches or market entry (34%).
Asked what would best help them stay compliant over the next 12 months, 43% chose AI combined with expert human counsel, 39% chose AI tools alone and 4% chose expert counsel alone.
Enhesa surveyed 273 senior compliance, risk, EHS, legal and sustainability decision-makers online in August. All work at organizations with 5,000 or more employees operating in at least two countries. Enhesa sells an AI-based regulatory compliance platform covering EHS, product compliance, chemicals and sustainability.
About the Author
Danielle Naidu is assistant editor for Security Today, Campus Security Today, Occupational Health & Safety and Environmental Protection Online.