artificial intelligence in political ads

Subscribe to artificial intelligence in political ads via RSS
…

This past weekend, we saw an ad posted on YouTube attacking Democratic Senatorial candidate James Talarico – using words that were apparently from his own tweets, commenting on a number of social issues.  What made the ad notable was that the words from the tweets were not just displayed on the screen or read by some anonymous announcer, but instead they were stitched together and read in what was seemingly Talarico’s own voice accompanied by a very convincing AI image of Talarico himself, and interjections were included where his AI image said approvingly things about the tweets like “I remember this one” and “so true.”   It is only apparent that the ad was not an actual recording of Talarico delivering the message by a small disclaimer in one corner of the ad labeling it “AI Generated.”  The ad is a very convincing portrayal of Talarico, and we expect similar ads will show up during the course of the current election cycle.  Broadcasters and all other media companies need to be ready to deal with ads like these and comply with all legal obligations that apply to such advertising.

We have written before about the efforts during the last administration by the FCC, the Federal Election Commission (see our note here and our article here), and by Congress to regulate the use of AI in political ads on a national level.  Those efforts did not lead to national rules on such uses.  However, the majority of states have adopted some rules for the use of AI in political ads.  For media companies, the biggest issue is that these rules are not uniform but instead impose different obligations to avoid legal liability.

We last wrote extensively about the state laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence in political ads about two years ago, when only 11 states had adopted such rules.  Since then, more than 20 other states have adopted rules – and the obligations they impose are all over the board.  Some states (like Minnesota) make it illegal to use AI in political ads to portray a candidate doing something that they did not actually do unless the candidate consents.  Most do not go that far but instead require some form of disclosure (like that in the anti-Tallarico ad, except that in many states, the required text for the disclosures is far more extensive, though those disclosure obligations are not uniform and, in a few states, the  disclosure requirements are inconsistent in the state’s own criminal and civil statutes). 

Continue Reading AI in Political Attack Ads – Watch State Laws on Deep Fakes and Synthetic Media in Political Content

The deadline for candidates in Texas to file for a place on the March 3 primary ballot was this week.  Deadlines for filing to become a qualified candidate in other states will follow soon for other primaries that occur in March, and then throughout the first part of 2026.  As a result, broadcast stations and cable companies across the country will be dealing with all of the FCC political rules that become important once you have legally qualified candidates.  Even before the deadline for candidates to file for their place on the ballot, stations are dealing with buys from potential candidates, PACs, and other third-party groups looking to establish positions for the important 2026 elections. Spending on political advertising is sure to increase as the new year rolls around, and some suggest that it could rival or even exceed the record amounts spent in prior elections. What should broadcast stations be thinking about now to get ready for the 2026 elections?

The week before Thanksgiving I did a webinar for over 20 state broadcast associations on these issues (check with your state association to see if they have access to an archived copy of that webinar).  We have also written about some of the issues that broadcasters should already be considering in our Political Broadcasting Guide (which we plan to update shortly). But there are many issues that broadcasters need to consider now.  Some of those are discussed below.

Continue Reading Getting Ready for the 2026 Election – Steps Broadcasters Should Be Taking Now to Avoid Legal Issues with Political Broadcasting

It’s a new year, and as has been our custom at the beginning of each year, we dust off the crystal ball and take a look at what we think may be some of the significant regulatory and legislative issues that broadcasters will be facing in 2025.  This year, there is an extra layer of uncertainty given a new administration, both in the White House and at the FCC.  Already, it appears that a new administration will bring new priorities – some barely on the radar in past years – to the top of the list of the issues that broadcasters will need to be carefully monitoring.

One of those issues has been a possible FCC review of the meaning of the “public interest” standard under which all broadcasters are governed.  As we wrote when President-Elect Trump announced his pick for the new FCC Chair starting on Inauguration Day, Chair-Designate Brendan Carr has indicated that this public interest proceeding will be a high priority.  In his opinion, broadcasters, or perhaps more specifically the news media, have suffered from an erosion of trust, and it has been his expressed opinion that a reexamination of the public interest standard might help to restore public trust.  We noted in our article upon his selection that this is not the first time that there has been a re-examination of that standard.  It has traditionally been difficult to precisely define what the standard means.  In the coming days, we will be writing more about this issue.  But suffice it to say that we are hopeful that any new examination does not lead to more paperwork obligations for broadcasters, as seemingly occurred whenever any broadcast issue was addressed by the current administration.  As we note below, there are several paperwork burdens that we think may disappear in the new administration, so we are not expecting more paper – but we will all need to be carefully watching what develops from any re-examination of the public interest standard.

Continue Reading Looking Into the Crystal Ball – What Legal and Policy Issues are Ahead for Broadcasters in 2025?

With the election over, broadcasters and their Washington representatives are now trying to decipher what the next administration will have in store at the FCC and other government agencies that regulate the media.  Already, the DC press is speculating about who will assume what positions in the government agencies that make these decisions.  While those speculations will go on for weeks, we thought that we would look at some of the issues pending before the FCC affecting broadcasters that could be affected by a change in administration.

There are two issues presently before the courts where the current Republican Commissioners dissented from the decisions which led to the current appeals. The FCC’s December 2023 ownership decision (see our summary here) is being appealed by both radio and television interests, arguing that the FCC did not properly relax the existing ownership rules in light of competition from digital media, as required by Congress when it established the requirement for Quadrennial Reviews to review the impact of competition and assess whether existing radio and TV ownership rules remain “necessary” in the public interest.  While briefs have already been filed in that case, it will be interesting to see how the new administration deals with the issues raised, as both sitting Republican Commissioners dissented, saying that the FCC should have considered digital competition in substantially relaxing those rules (see Carr dissent here and Simington Dissent here).  Even if the change in administration does not change the Commission’s position in court, the 2022 Quadrennial Review has already been started (see our article here), so a new administration already has an open proceeding to revisit those rules.

Continue Reading How FCC Regulation of Broadcasters May Change in a New Administration  – Looking at the Pending Issues

With less than a month to go before the November election, we can expect more and more attack ads, some of which may lead to cease and desist letters from the candidate being attacked.  These letters can raise the risk of defamation claims against broadcasters and cable companies when the ads are not bought by candidates.  The use of artificial intelligence in such ads raises the prospect of even nastier attack ads, and its use raises a whole host of legal issues beyond defamation worries, though it raises those too (see our article here on defamation concerns about AI generated content, and our articles here, here and here about other potential FCC and state law liability arising from such ads – note that since our last article on state AI laws, there are now over 20 states with AI laws I place).  Given the potential for a nasty election season getting even nastier, we thought that we would revisit our warning about broadcasters needing to assess the content of attack ads – particularly those from non-candidate groups. 

As we have written before, Section 315 of the Communications Act forbids broadcasters (and local cable companies) from editing the message of a candidate or rejecting that ad based on what is says except in extreme circumstances where the ad itself would violate a federal criminal law and possibly if it contains a false EAS alert (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here).  Because broadcasters cannot censor candidate ads, the Supreme Court has ruled that broadcasters are immune from any liability for the content of those ads.  (Note that this protection applies only to over-the-air broadcasters and local cable companies – the no censorship rule does not apply to cable networks or online distribution – see our articles here and here)  Other protections, such as Section 230, may apply to candidate ads placed on online platforms, but the circumstances in which the ad became part of the program offering need to be considered. 

Continue Reading Broadcasters Should Evaluate Attack Ads for Liability Concerns in the Final Weeks Before the November Election

October is, on paper, another busy month of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters.  But there is again the looming possibility of a federal government shutdown beginning October 1 if Congress fails to fund the government for the coming year (or pass a “continuing resolution” to allow government agencies to function at their current levels).  While as of today there are reports of a plan to extend funding through December, until a continuing resolution is passed, the threat remains.  If a shutdown does occur, the FCC, the FTC, and the Copyright Office may have to pause their operations which may result in some of the regulatory deadlines discussed below being delayed.  However, in some cases agencies have leftover funding to keep them functioning for a few extra days.  Stay tuned to see if any of the dates below have to be rescheduled. [Update – 9/26/2024, 9:00 AM – a continuing resolution extending government funding through December 20 was passed late yesterday by both the House and the Senate averting, for now, the shutdown about which we were concerned. Thus, the deadlines listed below are in effect as scheduled]

Assuming this recurring issue is resolved, let’s look at some of the October dates and deadlines, starting with the routine dates of importance to broadcasters. October 1 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ Online Public Inspection Files.  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  Be timely getting these reports into your station’s OPIF, as even a single late report can lead to FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).

Continue Reading October 2024 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, Annual EEO Public File Reports, ETRS Form One, Comment Deadlines, and More
  • The FCC announced that annual regulatory fees must be paid through its CORES database by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on
…

After postponing consideration of a proposal (which we wrote about here) from the Republican Commissioners at the Federal Election Commission to reject calls for a rulemaking to look at whether to require that there be labeling of political ads generated by artificial intelligence that falsely depicts a candidate, the AI item is back on…