This week’s PR Roundup shows how quickly trust can unravel—whether with consumers or employees. Ring’s Super Bowl ad for its AI-powered “Search Party” feature aimed to charm viewers with a lost-puppy story, but many found it “creepy,” igniting privacy concerns. Palantir CEO Alex Karp faced employee backlash after sidestepping questions about the company’s ICE contracts, highlighting the risks of opaque internal communications. And across the Big Game, AI-driven ads drew criticism, with Meltwater data showing nearly half of audience mentions on social media being negative.
Ring Super Bowl Ad Sparks Controversy
What happened: Dogs are supposed to make things happy and cute, right? Ring certainly thought so for its Super Bowl ad.
However, Ring sparked a wave of backlash after airing an ad promoting “Search Party,” its new AI-powered feature that uses neighborhood Ring cameras to help locate lost pets. While the spot aimed to tug at heartstrings, many viewers instead found it unsettling, with critics labeling the campaign “creepy,” “dystopian,” and a thinly-veiled case study in mass surveillance.
The feature, which allows participating outdoor cameras to scan footage and alert nearby users, immediately reignited long-standing concerns about Ring’s data practices, law enforcement ties and broader privacy issues. Social media reaction bubbled up quickly, with some users saying the ad prompted them to disable the feature or reconsider their use of Ring devices altogether.
The controversy is a reminder that even well-intentioned, feel-good tech campaigns can miss the mark if they trigger privacy fears. Critics quickly pointed out that a system designed to scan huge networks of cameras for lost pets could just as easily be used to track people, deepening long-standing concerns about surveillance.
Ring did push back, saying the feature doesn’t use human biometrics, and that users control how their footage is shared.
Communication takeaways: The reaction to Ring’s ad shows how fragile trust can be—and how fast it can unravel—especially on a stage as big as the Super Bowl. For communicators, it’s a clear lesson: when it comes to digital monitoring tools, skepticism should be expected, not treated as an afterthought.
Michael Grimm, Senior Vice President at Reputation Partners, says the ad shows what happens when marketing creative doesn’t account for the cultural moment.
“People willingly give up privacy every day through their cell phones, store apps and location tracking, but this ad crossed a line by showing that cameras could be activated without explicit consent,” Grimm says. “Finding a lost puppy seems innocent enough, but it reminded consumers they don't fully control their own devices at a time when concerns about government surveillance are running high.”
Grimm also made mention of the ongoing Nancy Guthrie case, where her Ring footage was accessed by Google without proper archiving in relation to a suspect disabling her camera.
“This only validated those concerns about who really controls user data and how it might be used,” Grimm says.
He says the PR lesson here is simple.
“Bring strategic communications into creative development early, not after the campaign is locked,” Grimm notes. “When communications professionals are in the room during brand strategy discussions, they can flag these risks before they become problems. That gives brands time to adjust messaging or build response plans.”
Grimm adds that Ring got caught flat-footed on a risk that was predictable, and “that's a process problem more than a creative one.”
Palantir CEO Dodges Employee Questions
What happened: This week Palantir CEO Alex Karp addressed employee concerns over the company’s work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a nearly hour-long prerecorded video, after weeks of mounting internal pressure, to demonstrate transparency.
According to an exclusive story in Wired, employee backlash followed the fatal shooting of Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents, which reignited debate inside the company about Palantir’s role in immigration enforcement. Employees flooded internal Slack channels with questions about how Palantir’s technology is used by ICE and whether the company’s contracts align with its stated values. Karp, however, largely sidestepped specifics, instead leaning into broader themes around national security, geopolitics and Palantir’s mission to “defend Western values.”
Rather than offering clear answers, Karp told employees they could sign nondisclosure agreements to receive individual briefings on the company’s ICE-related work—a move that frustrated many staffers and fueled criticism that leadership was actually avoiding transparency.
Communication takeaways: Employees can rarely control the contracts their employers sign. However, this situation highlights a cultural divide and the growing reputational and cultural risks companies face when government contracts collide with employee belief systems. It also demonstrates how internal communications decisions can quickly become external brand challenges, as everything internal is now external.
Cat Colella-Graham, Internal Communications Consultant and Adjunct Professor, says when communicating about sensitive political issues, leaders need empathy, transparency and to create safe spaces for conversation.
“As opposed to a video in an email, I would have had a town hall detailing the what, (contract/engagement with ICE) why (why did Palantir take them on) and why it matters (revenue, job security for employees),” Colella-Graham says.
She also notes the importance of two-way internal communication and suggested that in advance of a town hall, to invite employees to share questions on an anonymous form, and to answer said questions in the back half of the meeting.
“This is a moment employees need a reason to believe that they still are seen, heard and valued at Palantir, so following up with small focus groups as well as manager guidance—which includes messaging so all managers are singing from the same song book—matters,” she says. “Whatever we communicate internally, and the tone we take with employees, can be shared externally, so we want to show we are listening and addressing their concerns.”
Audiences Hate On AI-Generated Super Bowl Commercials
What happened: Super Bowl 2026 showed that AI-powered advertising is still more of a cultural lightning rod than brand win, according to a Meltwater analysis of real-time conversations during the game.
While AI-driven ads made up only a small slice of the overall ad chatter, they generated outsized scrutiny—and skepticism. Across platforms, audiences were quick to criticize brands that leaned too heavily on AI, arguing that automation often came at the expense of creativity, originality and production value. Instead of landing as innovative, many AI spots were dismissed as lazy, low-quality or showcased declining creative standards.
Key findings from the analysis include:
- AI ads accounted for less than 6% of total ad mentions and less than 4% of total ad engagement during the Super Bowl—a relatively small share, but one marked by heavy critiques.
- Sentiment skewed sharply negative:
- Nearly 50% of AI-ad mentions were negative, far worse than overall Super Bowl ad sentiment
- X: 54% negative sentiment
- Reddit: 35% negative sentiment
- Common critiques: AI ads were labeled “uninspired,” “low-quality,” and “AI slop,” with audiences arguing they weakened the creativity expected from Super Bowl spots.
There were also brand standouts—for better AND worse:
- Dunkin’ dominated the backlash, accounting for 37% of AI-related mentions and 9% of engagement. Sentiment was 42% negative, with viewers panning its AI-generated sitcom-style characters and celebrity use as disjointed and creatively weak.
- Svedka Vodka, meanwhile, drove 63% of total AI-related engagement, despite fewer mentions. Sentiment skewed mostly neutral, with buzz centered on novelty and its positioning as one of the first primarily AI-generated Super Bowl ads—more a curiosity than a creative triumph.
Communication takeaways: AI may grab attention, but it’s also raising expectations—and scrutiny—around creativity, authenticity and effort. For brands, using AI in high-profile moments like the Super Bowl doesn’t earn goodwill by default. If anything, it puts campaigns under a harsher microscope, where shortcuts and gimmicks are far more likely to be called out than celebrated.
Alexandra Saab Bjertnæs, Chief Strategy Officer at Meltwater, says the Super Bowl made one thing extremely clear about AI in messaging and advertising.
“Audiences will tolerate it as a tool, but they won’t embrace it as a shortcut for creativity,” Saab Bjertnæs says.
With nearly half the viewers hating on AI-related ads—a significantly higher amount than traditional advertisements—audiences felt brands were cutting creative corners.
“The brands that break through will use AI to accelerate execution, not replace imagination,” Saab Bjertnæs noted. “Innovation theater doesn’t build connection…great creative still does.”
Nicole Schuman is Managing Editor at PRNEWS.