Pennsylvania will require labels on AI-generated ads

The scope of the new law is broad, applying uniformly across all standard advertising formats. Whether an ad is presented as a still image, a dynamic video, an audio broadcast, or text-based promotional copy, creators and distributors are now legally obligated to include a visible or audible label whenever the media has been substantially modified or entirely generated by artificial intelligence. Furthermore, these disclosure tags must match the native format of the ad itself, ensuring that television viewers, radio listeners, and social media scrollers are not left guessing about the origin of the marketing materials they consume.

Because Pennsylvania represents one of the first states in the nation to enact such comprehensive disclosure mandates for AI-generated advertising content, the law carries implications that extend far beyond the state’s geographic borders. Advertisers and national media agencies preparing campaigns that are scheduled to air or circulate in Pennsylvania must now factor these compliance standards into their broader production workflows. Consequently, consumers in neighboring states may begin noticing these AI disclosure labels pop up organically on commercials and digital campaigns, provided those same promotional assets are slated for broadcast or distribution within the Keystone State.

Despite the groundbreaking nature of the legislation, legal experts and industry observers have already begun pointing out several notable loopholes and ambiguous definitions within the statutory text. One of the primary areas of concern centers on the law’s reliance on subjective terminology. Specifically, the statute fails to establish a concrete, objective threshold for what legally constitutes content that has been "significantly modified" by artificial intelligence. This vagueness leaves considerable room for interpretation by advertisers, legal counsel, and regulatory enforcement agencies alike, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how the law is applied across different industries.

Compounding these ambiguities are specific statutory carve-outs built into the legislation. The law exempts content classified as parody, satire, commentary, or criticism, as well as any promotional material deemed to be "evidently fictional." However, similar to the threshold for significant modification, the legislation does not provide clear guidelines or empirical tests for determining what qualifies as evidently fictional to an average consumer. This leaves creators of comedic or overtly stylized advertisements in a gray area, where the determination of whether a label is required could depend heavily on subjective enforcement decisions rather than clear-cut statutory rules.

Further complicating the enforcement landscape is the law’s underlying framing regarding consumer perception. The statutory language implies that mandatory disclosures are only triggered when synthetic content is utilized in a manner that creates a "false consumer perception" regarding a commercial product or service. This requirement introduces another layer of interpretative complexity, raising critical questions about what specifically qualifies as false under the parameters of the new law and who ultimately holds the authority to make those determinations when disputes arise.

As the Commonwealth transitions into an era of mandatory AI transparency in advertising, these unresolved interpretive challenges will likely face scrutiny from both industry stakeholders and legal scholars. Meanwhile, the office of State Senator Nick Pisciottano, who originally introduced the legislation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the definitions embedded in the bill or the expected enforcement mechanisms for the newly enacted law.