SB 806 would impose rigid, government-scripted AI disclosure requirements on advertisers even though deceptive advertising is already illegal under state law. As amended by the Senate, the bill strips out its knowledge standard and protections for online platforms, exposing intermediaries to liability for ads they did not create. The result would be over-labeling that leaves consumers less informed and higher costs for the Pennsylvania businesses that rely on AI tools to compete.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Pennsylvania SB 806
October 4, 2026
Pennsylvania Legislature
Dear Chair Ciresi, Chair Ortitay, and Members of the House Communications and Technology Committee:
NetChoice is a trade association of leading online businesses that promotes free enterprise and free expression on the Internet. Our members include platforms, online marketplaces, and advertising services that connect Pennsylvania consumers with businesses of every size. While we share the sponsors’ goal of protecting Pennsylvanians from deceptive advertising, we respectfully urge the Committee to oppose SB 806 as passed by the Senate, as it suffers from fundamental defects including:
- It duplicates Pennsylvania’s existing prohibition on false advertising, adding a compelled-speech mandate without adding protection.
- It converts a bill aimed at deceptive advertisers into an intermediary liability bill.
- The resulting liability will drive over-labeling that defeats the transparency the bill seeks.
Existing Consumer Protection Laws Already Reach AI-Related Harms
The premise of SB 806 is that deceptive AI advertising falls into a legal gap. It does not. SB 806 targets ads that use synthetic content “in a manner that creates a false consumer perception about the nature, origin or authenticity of the goods or services being advertised.” Every such ad is already unlawful in Pennsylvania, whether the deception is produced with AI, photo editing, or a paintbrush.
The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., prohibits representing that goods or services have characteristics, benefits, or qualities they lack, or that they meet a standard or quality they do not. Its catch-all reaches “any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” The law is technology-neutral: it asks whether an ad misleads, not how it was made. The Attorney General can already investigate, seek injunctions, restitution, and civil penalties, and consumers who suffer a loss can already sue. The Crimes Code separately makes false or misleading advertising a criminal deceptive business practice.
The General Assembly has also already legislated against AI-enabled deception specifically. In 2025, it enacted Act 35, sponsored by Senator Pennycuick, a co-sponsor of SB 806, making it a felony to use AI-generated deepfakes or voice clones to defraud Pennsylvanians. That law built on Act 125 of 2024, which targeted AI-generated sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate images.
Pennsylvania’s enforcers are already using these tools. The Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection actively pursues AI-enabled scams, and the Office of Attorney General has brought felony charges under Act 125. In March 2026, the Shapiro Administration launched a process for residents to report deceptive AI practices and a task force to review AI complaints, coordinating with the Attorney General, whose office already has authority to investigate deceptive practices under the UTPCPL.
Federal law adds another layer. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits deceptive practices regardless of the technology used, and the FTC has already brought AI-related cases under its Operation AI Comply initiative, including against a company whose AI tool generated fake consumer reviews. The FTC’s 2024 rule on consumer reviews expressly bans fake reviews, including AI-generated ones. And the Lanham Act lets competitors sue over false advertising that diverts their sales.
Layering a parallel, AI-specific regime on top of these actively enforced laws does not enhance consumer protection. SB 806 brings its own definitions, its own penalties, and its own enforcement by the Attorney General and district attorneys, creating confusion about which obligations govern and how they fit together. It even implies that a deceptive ad becomes acceptable once labeled, since its prohibition applies only to ads run “without clear and conspicuous disclosure.” In substance, SB 806 restates that false advertising is illegal when AI is involved, while adding a state-scripted disclosure mandate on top of a framework that already works.
The Disclosure Mandate Raises Compelled Speech Concerns
SB 806 does more than prohibit deceptive advertising. It requires advertisers to carry a government-scripted statement, dictates its size, color, contrast, location, duration, and audibility, and requires it to be “extraordinarily difficult to remove.” That raises compelled speech concerns. Required commercial disclosures must be factual, tied to preventing deception, and not unduly burdensome. Rules this prescriptive risk overwhelming short videos, small display ads, and audio spots. And because the line between an acceptable AI edit and a deceptive one is unclear, advertisers will likely label truthful ads too, extending the burden to lawful speech.
The Amendments Turn SB 806 Into An Intermediary Liability Bill
The sponsors intend liability to fall on the person who creates a deceptive ad. Two amendments undo that intent. Earlier versions applied only to a “knowing, reckless, or willful” violation. Those words were struck. Liability can now attach even where a party had no idea the content was AI-generated, which is close to strict liability. Additionally, prior drafts preserved protection for online intermediaries consistent with federal law. As amended, that language has been removed.
Combined with the bill’s reach to anyone who “creates and disseminates or causes to be created and disseminated” an advertisement, these changes pull in platforms, marketplaces, and ad networks that merely transmit a third party’s ad.
Removing the carve-out invites enforcers to test that defense case by case. The exposure is sharpest where a platform offers the AI tools sellers use to generate ad creative. That makes intermediaries natural targets: they are easy to identify and well-resourced, while the bad actor who created the ad may be anonymous or overseas.
Intermediary Liability Will Defeat the Bill’s Transparency Goal
The predictable result of SB 806 is over-compliance. Platforms and ad networks serve ads from vast numbers of advertisers and have no guaranteed way to tell whether an image, video, or audio clip was “significantly modified” by AI. Nor can an intermediary judge whether an ad creates a “false consumer perception” about a product it has never seen. Facing exposure for content they did not create and cannot verify, under a “reckless” standard enforcers could argue a platform meets simply by knowing AI tools are widely used, intermediaries will either label everything or refuse AI-assisted ads.
Neither outcome helps consumers. Blanket labels destroy the signal. California’s Proposition 65 cancer warnings became so widespread that consumers learned to ignore them, and AI labels would follow the same path. Labeling genuine photos as AI-generated would also misinform consumers and teach them to distrust authentic content. Refusing AI-assisted ads would instead fall on the Pennsylvania small businesses that rely on these tools to remove backgrounds, fix lighting, or produce product images they could not otherwise afford.
Meanwhile, the scammers SB 806 targets will not label their ads either way. The burden lands on legitimate advertisers and the services that carry their ads, and consumers lose the one thing a disclosure rule should provide: a meaningful signal about which content to question.
At the end of the day, SB 806 would put Pennsylvania businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Main Street retailers, restaurants, and online sellers increasingly rely on low-cost AI tools to produce product photos, translate listings, and create ads they could not otherwise afford. Faced with vague standards, no knowledge requirement, and just 60 days to comply, many will either abandon these tools or pay for legal review their out-of-state competitors do not need.
Conclusion
NetChoice urges the Committee to oppose SB 806. Pennsylvania already prohibits deceptive advertising, and the Attorney General already has the tools to enforce that prohibition. Should the Committee nonetheless advance the bill, it should at minimum:
- Restore the “knowing, reckless, or willful” standard;
- Restore the Section 230 carve-out and add a safe harbor for intermediaries that transmit third-party ads without knowledge of synthetic content, as this chamber’s HB 95 does for publishers;
- Define “advertiser” as the person who creates or commissions the advertisement;
- Remove text from the definition of “synthetic content” and limit coverage to images, video, and audio that would deceive a reasonable consumer; and
- Extend the effective date from 60 days to one year after enactment.
SB 806 would not make Pennsylvania’s ban on false advertising any stronger. It would make platforms answer for ads they did not write. Again, we respectfully ask you to oppose SB 806. As always, we offer ourselves as a resource to discuss any of these issues with you in further detail, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide the committee with our thoughts on this important matter (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.).
Sincerely,
Amy Bos
Vice President of Government Affairs, NetChoice
NetChoice is a trade association that works to protect free expression and promote free enterprise online.