TARC Talk Perspective – AI Won't Sign Your Lawsuit, Protecting Your Agency in the AI Era

Summary

The discussion focuses on how travel agencies can use AI to improve efficiency without handing responsibility for accuracy, client privacy, or marketing claims over to the technology. The speakers’ central recommendation is to treat AI as an assistant—not an authority—and support its use with written policies, human review, and documentation.

AI risks for travel agencies

• Misleading marketing: AI-generated hotel, cruise, beach, and tour images may depict amenities or conditions that do not exist. Advisors and agencies could face complaints or legal exposure for inaccurate or misleading advertising.
• Incorrect travel information: AI can provide inaccurate passport, visa, pricing, or destination details. The speakers say advisors—and potentially their agencies or host agencies—remain responsible for checking information shared with clients.
• Client-data exposure: Information entered into AI tools may be collected, combined with other data, or used in unexpected ways. The speakers caution against sharing passwords, security codes, financial details, passport information, or other sensitive client data without understanding the tool’s access and data practices.
• Fabricated or unreliable sources: AI can confidently invent answers, and inaccurate reviews or claims may be repeated by other systems. One example involved a supposed hotel-review opportunity offering $1,500 per review for reviews written without visiting the hotels.
• Copyright concerns: Agencies and contractors may unknowingly use copyrighted images supplied by another party. The speakers say copyright registration and clear takedown procedures can help address such cases; they cite potential image-use fines of $5,000–$20,000.

Recommended AI-use playbook

• Set written rules: Create AI policies for employees and independent contractors. Specify permitted tools and uses, client-privacy requirements, verification standards, image rights, human approval, recordkeeping, and procedures for reporting errors or data breaches.
• Verify before sharing: Check material facts using multiple sources. The speakers recommend consulting more than one AI model alongside reliable sources such as supplier portals, supplier representatives, and direct research. For detailed descriptions, they suggest checking two or three AI sources—but not relying on AI outputs alone.
• Keep a verification log: Record what was checked, which sources were used, and who approved the final material. A checklist can help demonstrate that an advisor took reasonable steps if a complaint or legal dispute arises.
• Require human approval: Have an advisor review AI-generated content before it reaches a client or the public. Human judgment is especially important when matching a trip to a client’s needs, interpreting preferences, and assessing whether recommendations are appropriate.
• Protect client information: Before connecting an AI tool to systems or sharing information, understand what the tool can access, how data may be used, and whether access can later be removed. Avoid giving AI tools credentials or security codes.
• Use contracts and disclosures: Update agency, host, and independent-contractor agreements to establish responsibilities and safeguards. Disclose AI use clearly and make disclaimers readable. The speakers stress that disclaimers can set expectations and show transparency, but do not eliminate liability for negligent verification or misleading advice.
• Preserve evidence and correct errors: Maintain records of approvals and research, and promptly remove questionable content when an issue is identified.

Appropriate uses and business value

The speakers support using AI for ideas, inspiration, drafting, writing, research assistance, comparison, and limited visual enhancement. They caution against relying on it for unverified travel facts or changing the substance of destination imagery.

AI may improve research efficiency and personalization, and some clients may come to expect advisors to use it. However, the speakers say that expectation does not automatically create a legal duty to use AI; professional standards depend on industry practice and applicable law. Advisors’ destination knowledge, supplier relationships, first-hand experience, and ability to understand client preferences remain important differentiators.

Regulation, market signals, and examples

• The speakers describe the EU AI Act as having a risk-based structure: prohibited uses, high-risk systems subject to stronger controls, transparency requirements for certain generative AI and chatbot uses, and minimal-risk applications.
• A New Mexico tourism campaign, called the “Keep It True” pledge in the discussion, encourages using real subjects and landscapes rather than generative AI in tourism advertising.
• Poll figures cited in the discussion were that 49% of Americans reportedly viewed AI-created ads negatively, 19% viewed them positively, and a separate nationwide poll reportedly found 76% feared AI. The speakers did not provide further sourcing for these figures.
• In one example, a traveler arrived with an AI-built Amsterdam itinerary. The advisor used destination experience and supplier knowledge to determine that a recommended hotel was not a good fit—illustrating why polished AI output still needs professional review.

Presenters and sources

The presenters were Lawrence Gore and Emilia/Amelia Khalisa Gore of Gore International Law. Their names and the firm’s spelling are rendered inconsistently in the auto-generated subtitles. The episode was hosted by an unnamed Travel Advisor Resource Center (TARC) moderator.

Lawrence Gore also referred to the International Forum of Travel and Tourism Advocates and to legal templates at travellegaltemplates.com.