Did You Interview a ‘Ghost Candidate’? A Guide to Spotting Fake Interviews
Hiring teams have always dealt with candidate misrepresentation. Inflated resumes, exaggerated skills, and borrowed portfolios are nothing new. What has changed is the scale and sophistication of deception. Today’s “ghost candidates” use artificial intelligence to fake interviews, obscure their identities, or rely on someone else to appear on their behalf.
With AI tools capable of generating real-time interview answers, altering voices, and manipulating video, candidate fraud has shifted from occasional misconduct to a growing operational risk. For organizations hiring at scale or recruiting remotely, the challenge is no longer just assessing skills. It is confirming that the person you interview is real, qualified, and capable of doing the work.
This guide explores why fake interviews are increasing, what the latest data shows, and how employers can spot and prevent ghost candidates before they turn into costly hiring mistakes.
Why Fake Interviews Are Increasing
Several forces are converging to make interview fraud more common than it was just a few years ago.
First, AI tools are widely accessible. Job seekers can now use AI to generate tailored resumes, cover letters, portfolios, and interview responses in seconds. Some tools provide real-time coaching during live interviews, feeding candidates answers as questions are asked. Others go further, enabling voice modulation or synthetic video that allows someone else to appear on camera.
Second, remote hiring has become standard. Virtual interviews are efficient and inclusive, but they remove many of the natural verification points that come with in-person meetings. When hiring teams rely heavily on video, chat, and asynchronous assessments, it becomes easier for candidates to misrepresent themselves or involve third parties without detection.
Finally, economic pressure plays a role. Candidates facing layoffs, global competition, or limited local opportunities may feel pushed to take shortcuts. In more serious cases, organized fraud rings target companies to gain access to systems, data, or steady paychecks under false identities.
What the Data Shows in 2025 and 2026
Recent research suggests this is not a hypothetical problem.
According to a 2025 hiring fraud survey by Checkr, nearly six in 10 hiring managers say they suspect candidates have used AI to misrepresent themselves during the hiring process. More than 30% report interviewing a candidate who was later found to have a fake identity, and over a third say someone other than the listed applicant participated in an interview.
Recruiters are also seeing more sophisticated forms of deception. Industry studies like this one from Greenhouse indicate that over 70 percent of recruiters have encountered AI-generated resumes or portfolios, while a growing number report seeing manipulated video or audio during interviews. A 2025 report from Gartner projects that by 2028, one in four candidate profiles globally will be partially or entirely fake, driven by the rise of AI-generated content.
The takeaway is clear. Candidate fraud is no longer rare, and AI is accelerating both its scale and sophistication.
What a Ghost Candidate Looks Like in Practice
Ghost candidates do not always raise obvious red flags. Many appear polished, prepared, and confident. However, there are patterns hiring teams can learn to recognize.
One common sign is inconsistency. A candidate may submit a highly detailed, technically precise resume but struggle to explain their experience conversationally. When asked to go deeper or provide specific examples, answers may become vague or repetitive.
Another indicator is overly perfect communication. AI-generated responses often sound polished but generic. Candidates may respond quickly and fluently to complex questions without natural pauses, reflection, or personal context. When asked the same question in a different way, they may repeat nearly identical phrasing.
Video and audio issues can also signal problems. Slight delays in lip movement, unnatural facial expressions, or voices that sound flat or overly processed may point to AI assistance. Candidates who repeatedly experience camera issues, insist on keeping video off, or position the camera at unusual angles should prompt additional scrutiny.
Finally, there may be a mismatch between interview performance and practical skills. Candidates who interview well but cannot complete live problem-solving tasks or explain their decision-making process may be relying on external support rather than their own expertise.
How Employers Can Spot Fake Interviews
Preventing interview fraud does not require abandoning remote hiring. It does require more intentional design.
Start by strengthening identity verification. This can include secure ID checks, verified video platforms, or brief live confirmations before formal interviews begin. These steps signal that authenticity matters without creating unnecessary friction.
Next, design interviews that test real understanding. Live problem-solving exercises, case discussions, or role-specific scenarios make it harder for AI tools to keep up. Ask candidates to explain how they would approach a problem, not just what the correct answer is.
Train interviewers to probe deeper. Follow-up questions, requests for examples, and clarifying prompts help distinguish memorized or generated responses from genuine experience. Interviewers should feel empowered to pause, revisit earlier answers, and explore inconsistencies.
Balance AI with human judgment. While AI tools are valuable for screening and efficiency, they should not be the sole decision-makers. Human reviewers are better at detecting nuance, hesitation, and context that technology may miss.
Finally, be transparent about expectations. Many employers now clearly state their policies on AI use during hiring. Letting candidates know that live interviews must reflect their own skills and experience helps set boundaries and reduces misuse.
Why This Matters for Employers
The cost of hiring a ghost candidate goes beyond a bad hire. It can lead to wasted recruiting time, onboarding expenses, and lost productivity. In some cases, it introduces serious security risks if fraudulent hires gain access to internal systems or sensitive data.
There is also an employer brand impact. Candidates who experience rigorous but fair hiring processes are more likely to trust the organization. Those who see fraud slip through may question the credibility of the company’s talent practices.
As AI continues to shape both hiring and job seeking, trust becomes a differentiator. Employers who invest in thoughtful, human-centered hiring processes will be better positioned to attract and retain real talent.
Final Thoughts: Tech, Training and Human Insight
Interview fraud has evolved. What once looked like résumé padding now includes AI-assisted ghost candidates and fake interviews that can be difficult to detect without preparation.
In 2026, successful hiring teams combine technology, training, and human insight. By understanding why candidates use AI to misrepresent themselves and knowing what to watch for, employers can protect their hiring process while still embracing the flexibility of modern recruiting.
The goal is not to eliminate AI from hiring, but to ensure it supports authenticity rather than replacing it.
If you enjoyed this article, you might also like:
