AI content labeling bill requires labels

Summary#

The Spot the Fakes Act is a proposed federal law that would create a labeling duty for AI-generated content and set rules for enforcing it through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Its stated aim is to require labels that identify content as AI-generated. The bill was introduced in the House and referred to committee; it is not law.

  • A person who owns or controls AI-generated content would have to label it as AI-generated in the output’s metadata or by another technological means.
  • The label must provide lasting verification of the content’s origin, as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) determines appropriate.
  • Within six months after enactment, the FTC would have to issue regulations, consulting the NIST Director, on how the label must appear.
  • The FTC would enforce the requirement under its powers for unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Applicable FTC Act penalties and protections would apply.

What it means for you#

  • People and organizations that own or control AI-generated content: If the bill became law, they would have to label that content. The bill covers video, images, audio, text and any other medium generated by AI.
  • People who view or use content: The bill would require a way to identify AI-generated content, but it does not create a right to have every piece of content reviewed or verified by the government.
  • The FTC and NIST: The FTC would have to set the display method and enforce the requirement. The NIST Director would determine what counts as appropriate lasting verification of origin.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill requires the FTC to issue regulations, but gives no estimate for the cost of that work.
  • The bill gives no estimate of costs to people or organizations that must add labels, or of FTC enforcement costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how to decide who “owns or controls” content when several people or organizations are involved.
  • It does not define when content is “generated” by AI, including how it applies to content made partly by AI.
  • The technical standards for labels and verification are left to later decisions by the FTC and NIST Director.
  • The bill does not set out exceptions, such as for particular kinds of content, or explain how someone could challenge an enforcement decision.
  • The bill does not specify a start date beyond requiring FTC regulations within six months after enactment.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that labels could help people distinguish AI-generated material from other content.
  • Requiring a lasting way to verify origin could make labels harder to separate from the content they identify.
  • Giving the FTC authority to set the method could allow technical details to be addressed in regulations rather than fixed in the law.

Case against#

  • The duty covers a broad range of media and people who own or control it, but the bill does not define those terms or state exceptions.
  • The key technical requirements would be decided later, so people and organizations may not know what they must do until the regulations are issued.
  • The bill does not explain how its broad coverage would work when content is partly generated by AI or has multiple owners or controllers.
  • The bill requires labeling, but does not itself guarantee that labels will remain visible or that people will notice or understand them.