Google's AI Overview shows wrong information about people and businesses when the pages it draws on are inaccurate, outdated or about someone else, or when its system misreads them. You cannot edit an overview yourself, and Google does not promise to change any single answer, so the fix is methodical: record it, trace its sources, correct or lawfully remove them, report it to Google, and re-test.
Why does Google's AI Overview show wrong information about you?
Google is candid about the risk: its help page says AI Overviews "can and will make mistakes". The reach makes each mistake costly. At its I/O conference in May 2026, Google said AI Overviews had more than 2.5 billion monthly users and AI Mode, its separate AI search experience, more than 1 billion. AI Overviews reached India in August 2024 in English and Hindi, and since October 2025 AI Mode has also worked in seven more Indian languages.
Google has also explained where errors come from. Discussing early problems in May 2024, it pointed to misread queries, misread nuances of language on web pages and topics with little good information, and said it had limited satire and some user-generated content in answers. Its AI Mode help page adds that the system can misinterpret web content or miss context. Both features may use what Google calls query fan-out, running several related searches and combining the results, so one answer can blend pages about different people.
Step 1: Record the AI Overview properly
Capture exactly what Google showed before you complain to anyone, because overviews change. Google says results vary with location, language, device and time, and with personalisation when you are signed in; AI Mode can also draw on your past searches if its personal features are on. Run each search signed out in a private window and again in your usual account, noting the city, device and language each time.
For every capture, keep the exact query, the date and time, a full-page screenshot of the expanded overview and its list of links, and save each linked page as a PDF, since sources get edited or deleted. Then test the searches a client, investor or employer would run: your name with your city, company or profession, and words such as fraud, complaint, case or review. Repeat the same set in AI Mode.
If legal action is possible, treat your screenshots and saved pages as evidence from the start. Keep the original files and the device used, and log how each capture was made. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 requires a certificate describing how an electronic record was produced to accompany it each time it is offered in evidence, and a clean log makes that certificate simple to prepare.
Step 2: Find the sources behind the AI Overview
Google says AI Overviews link to supporting information on the web, so begin with those links. Open each one and match every wrong statement to the page that appears to support it. Most cases fall into three groups: a page that says the wrong thing about you; a page that is accurate but concerns someone else or an earlier period; or no page that says it at all, because the overview has combined or misread its sources.
Because AI features may run several related searches, the pages behind an answer are not always among the top results for your name. Search the related questions too: your name with your employer, city or title, and the exact words of the false claim. Check pages that commonly describe people and firms, including Wikipedia, directories, review and complaint platforms, forums, old press releases, court-listing sites and your own website. Whether a source is wrong, accurate but misapplied, or absent decides the route that follows.
RepuLex Legal Services
Step 3: Correct inaccurate sources at their origin
Start with what you control. Update the about, leadership and contact pages on your website, remove statements that are no longer true, and add a dated note where a change matters, such as a closed branch or a departed director. If you are an owner or full user of the site in Search Console, its URL Inspection tool lets you ask Google to recrawl a changed page, though Google says repeating the request does not speed it up. Correct your Google Business Profile too; Google reviews changes before they go live.
For pages you do not control, write to the editor or site owner, attach the documents that prove the correct position, and ask for a correction or an update note. When a page has been changed or taken down but Google still shows the old wording, anyone other than the site's owner can use Google's Refresh Outdated Content tool. It updates only Google's search result, not the page, and it will not work while the wrong information remains on the live page.
Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people requires contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced to be removed immediately, and it treats a subject who removes such material leniently. Anything more should not be done by you or your staff: the conflict-of-interest guideline asks affected editors to propose changes on the article's talk page, and paid editors must disclose who pays them. Subjects can also raise problems on the biographies noticeboard or by emailing Wikipedia's volunteer response team.
Step 4: Remove unlawful sources: defamation, privacy and impersonation
Some sources are not merely wrong but unlawful, and removing them at source is the lasting fix. Defamation is an offence under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly sections 499 and 500 of the IPC), and a court can order defamatory content taken down. Platforms do not rule on defamation: a 2022 amendment removed "defamatory" from the categories in Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, 2021, leaving it to courts, and in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) the Supreme Court read the actual knowledge that requires an intermediary to act under section 79 as a court order or government notification.
Privacy invasion, impersonation and patently false information spread knowingly remain listed in Rule 3(1)(b), so you can complain directly to the grievance officer of the platform hosting the content. Under amendments in force since 20 February 2026, platforms must resolve most such removal complaints within 36 hours and other grievances within 7 days, and must act on a court order or government notice within 3 hours. A refusal can be appealed online to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days. Accurate reporting that is merely unflattering usually stays up.
Step 5: How to report a wrong AI Overview to Google
On the overview, click the thumbs-down icon and then Report a problem, or use the overview's three-dot menu; in AI Mode, use the thumbs-down icon under the response, pick the closest category and add detail. Quote the false sentence, give the correct fact and name a page that proves it. Google says feedback helps it improve the feature, and AI Mode feedback is sent with your latest query and its results.
For a legal problem, use Google's legal removal troubleshooter. After you select Google Search, it asks whether the request concerns content generated by AI within a Google product, offers AI Overviews and AI Mode as options, and then asks for the legal basis, such as a court order. Google's grievance page for India sends content removal requests to its legal web form rather than its support email. Google says it reviews each request, considers blocking, limiting or removing access, and confirms receipt by email with a reference number.
Keep expectations realistic. Neither Google's feedback button nor its legal form obliges it to rewrite a particular answer, Google publishes no timeline for acting on either, and a legal request succeeds only where the law supports it. Reporting is still worth doing, because it puts the problem on record with Google, and a request made after the source has been corrected or removed can point to that change.
Step 6: Strengthen accurate information without gaming Google
Google's guidance for site owners is blunt: there are no additional requirements and no special optimisations needed to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode. A page can be shown as a supporting link only if it is indexed and eligible to appear in Search with a snippet. Be wary of anyone selling a special technique for AI Overviews, since Google says none is needed, and of fake reviews or anonymous rebuttal sites, which risk becoming the next damaging source.
What helps is accurate information that is easy to find and check. Keep an official website with a clear about page and add Organization structured data, which Google says helps it understand an organisation and disambiguate it in results; its sameAs property can point to your official profiles. Google asks that structured data match the text visible on the page, and lists a current Business Profile among its best practices for AI features. For ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, see RepuLex's broader guide to AI reputation management in India.
If a Knowledge Panel appears for you or your organisation, claim it: click Claim this knowledge panel at its foot and sign in through one of the official profiles Google lists, such as YouTube, Search Console or Facebook. Verified owners can suggest edits, and Google checks suggestions against other public information before updating its Knowledge Graph, which is one more reason to correct the sources first.
How long does it take for an AI Overview to change?
Google publishes no timeline for when an AI Overview will reflect a corrected or removed source; much depends on when its systems next crawl the pages involved and how those pages are ranked afterwards. Treat change as something to measure rather than wait for. Re-run your original set of searches on a fixed schedule with the same method as the first capture, and log the date, the wording of the answer and the sources it cites.
Progress looks like the false claim disappearing or being qualified, a corrected page being cited, or no overview appearing for that query at all. Keep every earlier capture, because if a legal claim follows they show how long the statement was visible. The table below sets out who acts at each step and what changes.
| Action | Who acts | What changes |
|---|---|---|
| Correct your own website or profile | You, then Google when it recrawls | The source states the right facts |
| Publisher correction or update | The editor or site owner | The source text changes; a stale search snippet can be refreshed with Google's tool |
| Complaint or court order against unlawful content | The hosting platform or a court | The source comes down and stops being available to cite |
| Feedback on the overview | Google uses it to improve the feature, with no promise about one answer | |
| Legal removal request to Google | Google's legal review | Google considers blocking, limiting or removing access |
| Suggested Knowledge Panel edit | Google, after checking public sources | Accepted edits update the Knowledge Graph |
What if the AI Overview confuses you with someone else?
Mix-ups between people or businesses with the same or similar names are among the hardest errors to spot, because each source may be accurate about its real subject. Identify the other person or firm and the pages about them. Those pages usually cannot be removed, since they are true of someone else, so the task is to make the difference unmistakable.
Use every consistent identifier you have: the same full name with a middle name or initial, your city, profession and employer, and for a business its registered and trading names, address and sector. Put them on your website, profiles and structured data, and tell Google in your feedback exactly which two people or firms the overview has merged. If a publisher used your name or photograph in a report about someone else, that is a correction or defamation matter against the publisher.
Can you take legal action over a false AI Overview in India?
As of 10 September 2026, the position is unsettled. Section 79 of the IT Act protects an intermediary from liability for third-party information it handles in that capacity, provided it does not initiate the transmission, select its receiver or select or modify the information, and observes due diligence. An AI Overview is text composed by Google's own system from other pages, and as far as reported judgments show, no Indian court has decided whether section 79 covers it.
Two recent signals frame the question without settling it. On 20 May 2026 the Calcutta High Court, refusing interim relief in IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd v. OpenAI Inc., said ChatGPT's responses prima facie made it an originator rather than an intermediary and distinguished it from conventional search engines, but called the issue complicated and vexed and left it for trial on expert evidence. In a written answer reported on 29 July 2026, the government told the Lok Sabha that whether an AI system is an intermediary depends on the nature of its service and the functions it performs.
Nothing else yet settles whether AI summaries are protected. The February 2026 rules on synthetically generated information cover audio, visual and audio-visual content, not text. In the United States, a Minnesota solar installer sued Google in 2025, alleging that an AI Overview falsely said the state's Attorney General had sued it, and a Georgia court granted summary judgment to OpenAI in May 2025 in Walters v. OpenAI over ChatGPT output. Eugene Volokh has argued in the Journal of Free Speech Law that AI companies ignoring notice of specific false output may face liability. None of this binds an Indian court.
When should you bring in an online reputation management agency?
Most of the steps above can be taken without paying anyone. Outside help earns its cost when an unlawful source will not come down, a publisher refuses a documented correction, the overview repeats a criminal allegation, a name mix-up persists, or the answer is already costing contracts, hires or investment. RepuLex, India's #1 legal-first online reputation management agency, audits what AI Overviews and AI Mode say about a client, maps each claim to its sources and, through its partner law firm Unified Chambers And Associates, pursues the notices and court filings that removal requires.
RepuLex charges a fixed fee per link rather than a monthly retainer: a standard-complexity removal is ₹99,999, while national news media, court-reported and legal-database URLs are quoted separately from ₹1,00,000 per URL, all excluding 18% GST. Fees are payable in advance and refunded in full if the agreed removal is not delivered within the agreed timeline, including where a platform refuses. No agency can promise what an AI Overview will say; the work is on the unlawful sources and on the accuracy of what replaces them.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get Google to delete an AI Overview about me?
No request deletes an overview on demand. Google takes feedback on each answer, and legal complaints through its removal troubleshooter, which now names AI Overviews and AI Mode, but it judges legal complaints against the law and commits to no particular answer. Correcting or taking down the page behind the claim is often what changes the result.
Is Google AI Mode different from AI Overviews when it gets my business wrong?
Both draw on the web similarly: Google says each may use query fan-out, and a page must be indexed and eligible for a snippet to appear as a link in either. The differences are practical: AI Mode can tailor answers to your search history if you allow it, and it has its own thumbs-down feedback, so test and report it separately.
Will my name be published if I send Google a legal removal request?
Google shares certain legal notices with Lumen, a third-party project that publishes copies of takedown requests, but it never passes on what you type in the contact fields. For defamation complaints, Google says the requester's name is generally withheld unless there is a high public interest, and for requests made under local law it does not share the requester's name at all.
Can I stop AI Overviews from quoting my own website?
Partly. Google says the nosnippet rule keeps a page's text out of snippets and out of the direct inputs to AI Overviews and AI Mode, while data-nosnippet can mark a single passage, such as an outdated paragraph that keeps being misread. Noindex removes the page from results altogether. All three also affect ordinary search results, so correcting or deleting the passage is usually cleaner.
Can I sue Google in India over a false AI Overview?
You can approach a court, but the law is unsettled. Indian courts have not yet decided whether section 79 shields a search engine's AI-written summaries, and in May 2026 the Calcutta High Court took only a prima facie view that ChatGPT is an originator, leaving the point for trial. Take advice on evidence, defendants and whether removing the source would be quicker.
How long does a wrong AI Overview take to change?
There is no set period. Change tends to follow correction or removal of the pages behind the answer, once Google's systems revisit them, and may not reach every searcher at once. Repeat the same searches at intervals, signed out and from the same place, and keep dated records showing whether the claim has gone, softened or moved to another source.
Will posting positive content fix a negative AI Overview?
Not on its own. New pages do not correct or remove the page making the damaging claim, which can still be retrieved when someone searches your name. Accurate profiles, a clear official website and consistent structured data help the right facts surface; fabricated reviews, paid praise or anonymous rebuttal sites are deceptive and can turn into fresh sources of harm.
RepuLex Editorial
Legal Researcher · IT Law & Defamation Practice
RepuLex's editorial team is composed of practising advocates and senior legal researchers specialising in IT Act 2000, defamation law, and digital content enforcement across Indian High Courts. All articles are reviewed for legal accuracy before publication. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for your specific situation.