As New York sets a groundbreaking precedent for AI advertising transparency, the legal battles loom on the horizon. Recently, Governor Kathy Hochul cemented New York's position as the first U.S. state to enforce explicit disclosure when advertisements utilize AI-generated performers. Sponsored by SAG-AFTRA, these regulations came into effect amidst federal threats to penalize states that dare to craft their own AI rules, particularly from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.
The contrasting approaches to AI regulation by New York and the Trump administration could foreshadow a significant legal clash about who really gets to call the shots on AI governance in America. While New York aims to bolster transparency and protect legacy, the administration seeks to impose a unified federal standard, ostensibly to avoid a patchwork of state laws that could burden companies with inconsistent obligations.
The state's new laws-S.8420-A/A.8887-B and S.8391/A.8882-not only mandate advertisers to disclose the use of synthetic AI performers but also prevent the exploitation of deceased performers' likenesses without prior consent from their estates. This move, described by Governor Hochul as enacting "common-sense laws," seems primarily geared toward preserving the integrity and authenticity of advertising content while respecting the personal rights of individuals, dead or alive. The implications here extend well beyond mere regulatory compliance-they touch on ethical considerations in the use of AI technologies in media.
Yet, the executive order from President Trump directly challenges these state initiatives. Citing the need for a "minimally burdensome national standard," the order tasks the Justice Department with scrutinizing state laws for potential federal preemption and even threatens to strip funding-specifically from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program-for states deemed non-compliant with the new federal directive. This push and pull between state and federal visions of AI regulation highlights a broader debate over decentralization versus centralization in the governance of emerging technologies.
Adding complexity to this scenario is the enforcement aspect. Both federal and state bodies will grapple with the practicalities of implementing these laws and orders, from defining what constitutes an "AI-generated performer" to determining the overlap of federal and state jurisdiction. Technological evolutions, such as the ongoing development and deployment of generative AI, further muddy the waters, making static regulations quickly outdated.
In essence, New York's pioneering stance on AI advertising disclosure sets an intriguing legal and ethical precedent. However, as the federal government gears up to streamline AI regulations across states, one must wonder if the spirit of innovation and protection embedded in state laws will be preserved or overridden by national interests. As disputations unfold, the collision of state innovation with federal authority could either forge a path toward comprehensive, balanced AI regulations or splinter into a fragmented legal landscape, complicating compliance for advertisers and tech firms alike.
For further insights into related developments, check out our article on recent crypto regulatory frameworks which also navigate the complex interplay between federal and state regulations.
