Why does ChatGPT get facts about businesses wrong? Learn how hallucinations, outdated information, conflicting sources and entity confusion affect AI answers.
Why does ChatGPT get facts about businesses wrong? Learn how hallucinations, outdated information, conflicting sources and entity confusion affect AI answers.

There’s a particularly strange moment happening to business owners right now. You ask ChatGPT about your own company and discover that apparently it knows something about your business that you don’t. Maybe it lists an old address, says you offer a service you stopped offering three years ago or names an executive who left the company ages ago. Sometimes it’s harmless. Sometimes it’s exactly the kind of information a prospective customer might use when deciding whether to call you.
And here’s the frustrating part: the correct information may be sitting right there on your website. So why doesn’t AI simply read it and get the answer right? Well, because that’s not quite how this works. ChatGPT doesn’t maintain one perfectly current master file containing the official facts about every business on Earth. Depending on the question, it may rely on information learned previously, current information retrieved from the web, sources elsewhere online or some combination of those things. And yes, sometimes it can simply be wrong.
“Hallucination” has become the catch-all phrase for AI getting something wrong, but that’s actually a little misleading. A hallucination is generally when an AI system generates something that sounds completely reasonable but isn’t true. OpenAI acknowledges this problem in its own research explaining why language models hallucinate. Even very capable models can sometimes confidently produce incorrect information rather than saying, “I don’t know.”
But that’s only one possible explanation. ChatGPT might also find an old directory listing, an outdated article, a former employee biography or information about another company with a similar name. The answer is still wrong, but the AI didn’t necessarily invent the fact. It may have found bad or outdated information and repeated it. That’s an important distinction because you can’t fix a true hallucination. You may, however, be able to fix the information that caused the confusion.
Businesses tend to think of their own website as the official record. You move offices, update the address and you’re done. Except the internet apparently didn’t get the memo. Old directories still have the previous address. A five-year-old press release names your former CEO. An industry association has a description somebody submitted in 2019. LinkedIn says one thing, your website says another and some forgotten business profile says something completely different.
Now imagine an AI system trying to make sense of all of that. A human can look at the dates and figure out that the company moved from Overland Park to Kansas City two years ago. An AI system has to retrieve and interpret those different pieces of information and decide which one belongs in the answer. Usually it does a pretty remarkable job. Sometimes it doesn’t.
This is where AI Authority starts becoming about more than publishing content. A business needs a reasonably consistent digital identity. Company name, location, leadership, services, products and other important facts should agree across the places where those facts appear. You don’t need every mention of your company across the internet to be identical. That’s probably impossible. But you don’t want five credible sources giving five different answers to a very basic question either.
Here’s the part businesses need to accept: you can do everything right and an AI system can still make a mistake. OpenAI is pretty clear that hallucinations remain a limitation of large language models. That’s especially relevant for smaller businesses because the facts that matter to them may not be repeated thousands of times across the web.
Think about the difference between “What is the capital of France?” and “What year was this Kansas City manufacturer founded?” The first answer exists virtually everywhere. The second may appear on one About page, an old newspaper story and a business directory. If those sources disagree, or if the information isn’t readily available, there’s simply more room for the system to get confused.
That’s also why I get a little nervous when someone claims AEO or GEO can somehow make AI perfectly accurate about a company. It can’t. No agency controls ChatGPT’s model, Google’s AI systems, Claude, Gemini or Perplexity. If the companies building these systems can’t completely eliminate hallucinations, your marketing agency certainly hasn’t discovered a magic schema tag that can.
ChatGPT can search the web for current information, which makes it considerably better at answering questions about businesses that change over time. OpenAI explains how this works in its information about ChatGPT Search and its sources. When sources are provided, businesses should actually look at them. Seriously. They’re one of the best clues you have.
If ChatGPT says you have three locations when you actually have five, check the sources behind the answer. Maybe an old article mentions three. Perhaps a directory hasn’t been updated. Maybe the page listing all five locations isn’t particularly easy to find. Suddenly the wrong answer becomes useful because it has exposed a piece of outdated information you didn’t know was still floating around.
This is why I think businesses should look at AI accuracy alongside AI visibility. Getting mentioned isn’t necessarily a win if the answer says the wrong thing about you. “Are we showing up?” is only half the question. The other half is, “When we show up, are we being represented correctly?”
First, don’t panic over one answer. Ask the question again in a fresh conversation and phrase it a few different ways. Then try the same question in Gemini, Claude, Perplexity or Google’s AI experiences. If one platform gets it wrong once, you may simply be looking at normal generative variability. If several systems repeatedly give you the same incorrect fact, now you’ve got something worth investigating.
Next, search for the incorrect information itself. If AI says your company was founded in 2005 when it was actually 2008, search your company name with “2005.” If it gives an old address, search the company name and that address. You might be surprised by what you find. Then work outward from the sources you control. Make sure your website clearly states the correct information, leadership pages are current, location pages make sense and structured data matches what visitors can actually see. Google’s guidance for AI search reinforces many of these same fundamentals.
After that, look at important third-party sources. Update business profiles, professional profiles and directories you legitimately control. If a publication contains a genuine factual error, request a correction when appropriate. The objective isn’t to somehow scrub every old reference from the internet. A 2018 article naming your 2018 CEO isn’t wrong just because somebody else runs the company today. The goal is to make the current truth easier to identify.
Structured data helps, but let’s not give it superpowers. Schema markup can make relationships clearer by identifying your organization, people, locations and other important information in a machine-readable way. That’s useful for AI discoverability and traditional SEO because you’re reducing ambiguity.
What schema can’t do is reach into ChatGPT and replace an incorrect answer. Google itself says structured data should accurately represent what’s visible on the page and that no special schema is required simply to appear in its AI features. Think of structured data as clarification, not control. You’re helping machines understand what you mean. You’re not giving them orders.
Yes, within reason. And I think “within reason” is the important part.
You can’t guarantee that ChatGPT will never hallucinate about your company. You can’t force Gemini to use a particular source or make Perplexity interpret every piece of information exactly the way you’d like. What you can do is eliminate unnecessary confusion. If your website, Google Business Profile, LinkedIn page, industry directories and media references all tell conflicting stories, clean that up. If important information about your business is difficult to find, make it clearer. If old facts are still presented as current facts on properties you control, update them.
That’s not really about gaming AI. It’s good digital housekeeping, and it happens to matter a whole lot more when machines are increasingly reading the internet on our behalf.
ChatGPT can get facts about your business wrong because the model hallucinated, because it found outdated information, because different sources contradict each other or because it confused your company with another entity. Sometimes you’ll be able to trace the mistake. Sometimes you won’t.
The useful response isn’t trying to control every AI answer. It’s making the truth easier to find, understand and corroborate. Monitor how your business appears across AI search. Check important facts periodically. Keep the information you control accurate. Look for meaningful contradictions elsewhere and correct them when you reasonably can.
AI Authority isn’t only about whether an AI system knows your business exists. It’s also about whether the digital evidence surrounding your company gives that system a fair chance of understanding you correctly. Before worrying too much about whether AI recommends your business, it’s probably worth making sure it’s recommending the right version of it.

Zoe Jewell is Managing Director at Fireball Agency, a Kansas City-based marketing agency helping businesses build AI authority and visibility. Connect with Zoe on LinkedIn.
Zoe brings together creativity, technology, and execution to turn ideas into results. She has led content teams, helped develop websites, apps, and Chrome extensions, and contributed to digital campaigns that have generated millions of customer interactions. At Fireball, she keeps strategy moving from concept to completion.