our searcher client just found the perfect acquisition target: a $4M EBITDA marketing agency with impressive margins, sticky client relationships, and strong growth trajectory. During due diligence, they discover the business has “modernized” by integrating AI tools throughout operations—ChatGPT for content creation, Jasper for copywriting, Midjourney for design mockups, and custom workflows built on OpenAI’s API.

The seller presents this as a competitive advantage. “We’re AI-forward,” they explain proudly. “It’s why our margins are so strong and our team is so productive.”

Your client asks: “Should I be concerned about this?”

The answer is nuanced—and critically important for post-acquisition success.

AI integration isn’t inherently problematic. But the emerging dependency risk from AI services represents a new category of technical due diligence concern that most M&A facilitators haven’t encountered before. This isn’t traditional software licensing or vendor relationships. It’s something fundamentally different, with unique implications for lower middle market acquisitions.

The Invisible Infrastructure You’re Inheriting

Here’s what makes AI dependencies different from traditional technology vendors:

Traditional software vendors provide relatively stable products with predictable pricing, clear contractual terms, and gradual evolution. You license accounting software, CRM systems, or project management tools, and they function consistently year over year. Price increases are negotiated. Features are documented. Alternatives exist.

AI service dependencies are fundamentally more volatile. The services themselves are rapidly evolving, with providers routinely changing capabilities, pricing structures, usage policies, and even availability of specific features. What works today may function differently (or not at all) in six months—and you have limited contractual protection.

When a service business has deeply integrated AI services into core operations, you’re not just licensing software. You’re depending on:

• Model availability and stability – The specific AI model version that operations depend on may be deprecated or changed
• Pricing that can shift dramatically – AI providers routinely adjust per-token or per-request pricing based on demand and costs
• Usage policies subject to unilateral changes – Terms of service can prohibit specific use cases with little notice
• Quality and capability drift – AI models get updated, sometimes with worse performance for specific tasks
• Rate limits and throttling – Business growth can hit artificial usage caps that require costly tier upgrades

This isn’t hypothetical. In the past 18 months, major AI providers have deprecated models, changed pricing by 50%+, modified content policies affecting legitimate business uses, and altered rate limits—all with minimal notice to customers.

The Five AI Dependency Red Flags

When evaluating acquisition targets with AI integration, these five patterns signal problematic dependency:

1. Single-Provider Lock-In Across Critical Operations

What it looks like: The business uses OpenAI’s GPT models for content generation, customer service automation, data analysis, and internal communications. Everything runs through one provider’s API.

Why it matters: If OpenAI changes pricing, usage policies, or deprecates the specific models in use, there’s no quick fallback. The business faces either operational disruption or unbudgeted cost increases.

What to ask: “If [primary AI provider] changed their pricing by 50% or restricted our use case, what’s our backup plan? How long would it take to switch providers?”

2. Undocumented Custom Workflows Built on AI APIs

What it looks like: The technical team or owner has built internal tools, automation scripts, or workflows that call AI services—but there’s no documentation of how they work, what prompts are used, or how to maintain them.

Why it matters: Custom AI integrations are often owner-dependent. When prompts need adjusting, costs need optimizing, or providers need switching, the knowledge walks out the door if it’s not documented.

What to ask: “Show me the documentation for your AI workflows. If your technical person leaves, could someone else maintain and modify these systems?”

3. Revenue-Critical Processes Dependent on AI Output Quality

What it looks like: Client deliverables, billable services, or core product features directly depend on AI-generated output meeting specific quality standards. The business can’t deliver if AI quality degrades.

Why it matters: AI model quality isn’t guaranteed. Providers update models that sometimes perform worse on specific tasks. If revenue depends on consistent AI output and quality drops, you’re facing client dissatisfaction or refund requests with no recourse.

What to ask: “What happens to client commitments if AI output quality declines? Do you have quality monitoring and manual backup processes?”

4. Lack of Usage Monitoring and Cost Projection

What it looks like: The business uses AI services extensively but can’t tell you monthly costs, usage trends, or cost-per-client-project. “It’s pretty cheap” is the extent of financial tracking.

Why it matters: AI services charge by usage (tokens, requests, compute time). As the business scales, costs scale—but often non-linearly. Without monitoring, you can’t project post-acquisition costs or optimize usage.

What to ask: “Show me 12 months of AI service costs by project/client. How do costs scale as you add clients? What’s your cost per unit of output?”

5. No Provider Alternatives Tested or Documented

What it looks like: The business chose an AI provider two years ago and never evaluated alternatives. Workflows assume specific provider capabilities. No one knows if competitors could handle the same tasks.

Why it matters: Vendor optionality is your leverage. Without tested alternatives, you’re at the mercy of unilateral pricing changes and policy shifts. The switching cost (even just evaluating options) falls entirely on you post-acquisition.

What to ask: “When did you last evaluate alternative AI providers? Could Claude, Gemini, or Llama models handle your workflows if needed? What would switching cost?”

The Hidden Post-Acquisition Costs

AI dependencies create three categories of post-acquisition costs that don’t show up in traditional technical due diligence:

Cost Volatility and Optimization

The $2,000/month in AI services during due diligence can easily become $6,000/month post-acquisition when:

• Providers adjust pricing (happens regularly)
• Business growth increases usage (hopefully!)
• Inefficient prompt engineering wastes tokens
• Lack of caching means repeated identical requests

Budget impact: Plan for 50-150% annual increases in AI costs for growing businesses, not the 3-5% you’d expect from traditional software licenses.

Knowledge Transfer Complexity

Owner-built AI workflows are particularly difficult to transfer because:

• Effective prompts require understanding of both the business domain and AI behavior
• Debugging AI integrations requires different skills than traditional software
• Optimization (cost and quality) is ongoing, not one-time setup

Timeline impact: Add 3-6 months to standard owner transition planning if AI workflows are undocumented and owner-dependent.

Compliance and Policy Risk

AI usage policies are evolving rapidly, often driven by regulatory pressure and public relations concerns:

• Content generation use cases that were permitted may be restricted
• Data processing that was allowed may violate new policies
• Geographic availability may change based on regulatory requirements

Risk impact: A single policy change can make core business processes non-compliant overnight, with no grandfathering for existing customers.

The Due Diligence Questions That Actually Matter

For M&A facilitators advising searchers on AI-dependent acquisition targets, these questions separate manageable integration from problematic dependency:

Provider Concentration:

• “What percentage of operations would be disrupted if [primary AI provider] had a 24-hour outage?”
• “How many different AI services does the business depend on? Can you map them to critical operations?”

Documentation and Transferability:

• “Show me the documentation for prompt engineering and AI workflow configuration.”
• “If we needed to switch providers, what documentation exists to recreate these workflows?”

Cost Structure and Monitoring:

• “What’s the per-client or per-project AI cost structure? How has it trended over 12 months?”
• “At what growth rate do you hit usage tier thresholds requiring pricing changes?”

Quality Assurance:

• “How do you monitor AI output quality? What’s the manual review process?”
• “Have you experienced quality degradation from model updates? How did you handle it?”

Business Continuity:

• “What’s the backup plan if your primary AI provider changes terms or pricing significantly?”
• “How long would switching to an alternative provider take? What would it cost?”

These questions aren’t technical—they’re operational risk assessment. Your searcher clients can ask them without deep AI expertise.

When AI Integration Is Actually an Advantage

Not all AI dependency is problematic. Here’s what good AI integration looks like in an acquisition target:

Well-documented workflows with clear prompt engineering, configuration documentation, and rationale for provider choices. Knowledge transfer is possible.

Usage monitoring and optimization showing the business understands costs, tracks efficiency, and has optimized token usage and prompt engineering over time.

Tested provider alternatives indicating the business has evaluated other options and knows (roughly) what switching would require.

Appropriate guardrails with human review for critical outputs, quality monitoring, and contingency plans for AI service disruption.

Margin enhancement, not margin creation where AI improves efficiency or quality but doesn’t constitute the only reason margins exist.

When AI dependency exhibits these characteristics, it’s legitimate operational improvement—not ticking time bomb.

The Strategic Question: Build vs. Buy AI Capabilities

Here’s the broader strategic consideration for searchers evaluating AI-dependent businesses:

Businesses that have successfully integrated AI services often have valuable operational knowledge—they’ve figured out effective prompts, optimized workflows, and solved domain-specific challenges. That expertise has value.

But businesses that have created deep, undocumented, single-provider dependency have built a brittle operation vulnerable to forces entirely outside your control post-acquisition.

The strategic question for your searcher clients isn’t “Does this business use AI?” It’s “Could I maintain and improve these AI integrations after acquisition, and at what cost?”

If the answer requires the owner’s undocumented expertise, a specific AI provider’s continued cooperation on pricing and policies, and hope that model quality doesn’t degrade—that’s dependency risk worth quantifying in valuation.

Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies

For searchers who decide to proceed with AI-dependent acquisitions (often the right choice), these strategies reduce post-close risk:

Pre-Close: Documentation and Knowledge Transfer

Make AI workflow documentation an explicit pre-close deliverable:

• Complete prompt libraries with explanatory comments
• Provider account setup and configuration documentation
• Cost structure analysis and optimization opportunities identified
• Alternative provider evaluation (even if brief)

Budget additional owner transition time specifically for AI operations. The standard 30-60 day transition is insufficient for complex AI integrations.

Post-Close: Reduce Provider Concentration

Systematically reduce single-provider dependency:

• Identify non-critical AI uses that could move to alternative providers
• Test competing services for specific use cases
• Build internal expertise on multiple AI platforms
• Implement provider-agnostic abstraction layers where feasible

This doesn’t mean switching everything immediately—it means creating optionality.

Ongoing: Monitor and Optimize

Implement usage monitoring and cost tracking:

• Monthly AI service costs by provider, project, and client
• Per-unit costs (per-token, per-request, per-output)
• Quality metrics for AI-generated outputs
• Usage efficiency trends and optimization opportunities

This operational visibility enables proactive management instead of reactive crisis response when providers change terms.

Strategic: Build Institutional Knowledge

Develop team capability to manage AI operations:

• Train multiple team members on prompt engineering and workflow management
• Create internal documentation standards for AI integrations
• Establish quality review processes and optimization routines
• Stay informed on provider roadmaps and industry alternatives

The goal is moving AI operations from owner-dependent magic to institutionalized operational capability.

The Insurance Question You Should Ask

Here’s a practical litmus test that reveals dependency risk:

Ask the seller (and verify with their insurance broker): “Do you have cyber liability and errors & omissions insurance that explicitly covers AI-generated output?”

Most small businesses don’t—and many insurers are specifically excluding AI-related claims from standard policies. This coverage gap reveals two important things:

1. Uninsured risk exposure: If AI-generated content causes client harm, copyright issues, or business interruption, there may be no insurance coverage.

2. Industry uncertainty: The insurance market, which specializes in quantifying risk, hasn’t figured out how to underwrite AI dependencies yet. That should inform your risk assessment.

If the target business has secured insurance covering AI operations, that’s a positive signal. If they haven’t even considered the question, that’s concerning.

What This Means for M&A Facilitators

As an advisor to searchers evaluating acquisition targets, AI dependency assessment should be part of your standard due diligence framework now—not an edge case for tech companies.

Service businesses (marketing agencies, consulting firms, professional services) are integrating AI rapidly. Your clients need guidance on distinguishing beneficial adoption from problematic dependency.

Product companies (SaaS, software development, digital content) are embedding AI into core offerings. The dependency risk affects product roadmaps, competitive positioning, and valuation.

Operations-heavy businesses (logistics, manufacturing, distribution) are using AI for optimization, forecasting, and automation. The risk is less about customer-facing output and more about operational efficiency maintenance.

The common thread: AI dependencies are everywhere in lower middle market acquisition targets now. Ignoring them isn’t an option.

The Conversation to Have With Your Searcher Clients

Here’s how to frame AI dependency risk for clients without overwhelming them:

“AI services are powerful tools—but they’re not like traditional software. The provider can change pricing, quality, and policies with minimal notice, and you have limited contractual protection.”

“If this business has deeply integrated AI into operations without documentation, monitoring, or backup plans, you’re inheriting operational risk that’s hard to quantify.”

“We need to understand three things: how dependent are operations on AI services, how documented and transferable is that knowledge, and what happens if providers change terms post-acquisition.”

“This doesn’t necessarily kill the deal—but it might affect valuation, transition planning, and post-close priorities.”

This positions you as the advisor who understands emerging risks that others miss—valuable differentiation in competitive M&A markets.

The Bottom Line

AI integration in acquisition targets represents a new category of dependency risk that most M&A facilitators haven’t systematically evaluated before. Unlike traditional software vendors with predictable pricing and stable products, AI service providers can change terms, capabilities, and costs rapidly—and your searcher clients have limited recourse.

The risk isn’t AI adoption itself. Progressive businesses that leverage AI effectively create genuine competitive advantages. The risk is undocumented, single-provider, revenue-critical dependency without contingency planning or cost monitoring.

Your role as an M&A facilitator is helping searcher clients distinguish beneficial AI integration from problematic dependency. The questions aren’t particularly technical—they focus on documentation, optionality, cost visibility, and operational continuity.

The businesses that have integrated AI thoughtfully (with documentation, monitoring, and tested alternatives) deserve valuation credit for operational sophistication. The businesses that have created brittle, owner-dependent, undocumented AI workflows deserve valuation discounts for transition risk.

The tools to assess this risk are straightforward: ask about documentation, request cost data, evaluate provider concentration, test knowledge transfer. What matters is asking the questions at all—because most facilitators aren’t yet.

That’s your competitive advantage.

---