arXiv (2026) — Brand bias and manipulation in LLM product recommendations

Summary:

This paper from Xi Chu (Trine University) and YuPeng Hou (Texas A&M University), an academic team that sells nothing related to the topic, looks at how LLMs recommend products and whether they favor well-known brands. The main test case is skincare (moisturizer, BHA exfoliant, sunscreen, cleanser). A smaller check covers USB-C cables and AA batteries.

The authors ran controlled prompt experiments on three commercial models: GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet and Gemini 3 Flash, in English and Chinese. Each product list had 1 real brand (e.g. CeraVe, Paula’s Choice, EltaMD) and 9 made-up brands. Specs were either identical or changed in small steps. Every condition was repeated 20–30 times. The main brand-bias analysis uses 14,395 valid trials, the marketing-copy test 3,854 valid calls, and the multi-brand competition test 4,745 valid calls. A small retrieval (RAG) setup was tested as an extra probe.

Key findings:
• With identical specs, the real brand won 100% of the time (670 of 670 valid trials), across all three models, both languages and all four skincare types.
• This lock-in is fragile. A +0.075-star rating edge, 1.6× more reviews or a 7.3% lower price was enough for a made-up brand to win half the time.
• Product specs drive the ranking, not the brand name. Rating, price and reviews explain 82.4% of ranking variance, list position 6.5%, brand only 1.2%.
• Authority-style copy works, sales pressure doesn’t. Clinical-trial or dermatologist claims let the made-up brand win 73.3% of the time and social proof 50.7%, while anchoring, scarcity and loss-aversion copy stayed at 9.6–12.9%.
• Authority copy is worth about +0.17 rating points, the same effect as a 15.3% price cut or 1.9× more reviews.
• When everyone optimizes, the edge disappears. One optimized challenger cut the real brand’s win rate from 100% to 19.8%, but with all 9 challengers optimizing it came back to 93.8%, and each brand’s gain fell from +0.802 to +0.007.
• Brands that didn’t optimize got zero recommendations once competitors did (0 of 1,414 trials).
• Models react differently. When all brands optimized, Claude restored the real brand in 99.4% of trials, GPT in 96.2% and Gemini in 84.9%. Combining authority and social-proof copy cut Claude’s breakthrough rate from 55.0% to 21.2% but raised GPT’s to 91.2%.

Margin notes:
This is an arXiv preprint, not yet peer-reviewed. The authority copy that worked best used made-up clinical claims, so its effect is an upper bound, not a typical real-world result. The marketing-copy and multi-brand tests were run on skincare only; the cables and batteries check covers only the core brand lock-in pattern. Results come from repeated calls to three closed models with one fixed buyer persona, so calls are not fully independent (the authors partly correct for this with bootstrap and GEE checks), and the RAG part is a minimal pipeline, not a real commercial search system.