This paper interrogates the transformative implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on contemporary marketing, situating it within broader ethical, epistemic, civic, and socio-political frameworks. Departing from reductive accounts that celebrate efficiency and personalization, the paper adopts an interdisciplinary lens, drawing from philosophy, sociology, data science, political economy, and legal theory, to examine how AI reconfigures the ontology of consumer subjectivity, reshapes attention economies, and challenges foundational assumptions about autonomy, agency, and fairness. Central to this transformation is the rise of algorithmic persuasion, i.e., AI systems now operationalize behavioral engineering at scale, exploiting cognitive biases and affective cues to micro-target individuals with hyper-personalized content. This recalibration of influence is structurally embedded in the political economy of surveillance capitalism, wherein personal data is commodified, consent is obfuscated, and algorithmic logics remain opaque. The review highlights pressing concerns around algorithmic bias, the erosion of informed consent, attention commodification, the use of generative AI in brand construction, and the weaponization of marketing infrastructures for political microtargeting and misinformation. It also explores the evolving skillsets, ethical responsibilities, and pedagogical imperatives required of marketing professionals operating within this complex landscape. Rather than advocating for technological optimism or moral panic, the paper argues for a human-centric marketing paradigm rooted in algorithmic accountability, inclusive design, and critical AI literacy. In doing so, it calls for coordinated efforts across disciplines, institutions, and regulatory frameworks to ensure that marketing in the age of AI serves democratic values, protects individual autonomy, and nurtures epistemic justice. Ultimately, the review positions marketing not merely as a commercial enterprise but as a civic practice, i.e., one that must be governed with the same ethical rigor and public responsibility demanded of other powerful socio-technical systems.
Marchand et al. (Wed,) studied this question.