Pennsylvania Enacts Disclosure Rules for AI-Generated Advertising

Introduction

Pennsylvania is moving AI advertising disclosure from a voluntary practice to a legal requirement. Governor Josh Shapiro has signed the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Advertising Act, which requires qualifying advertisements to tell audiences when artificial intelligence has generated or significantly modified the material.

The measure is broader than a rule aimed only at deepfake videos. Based on the law’s description, it can apply to a still image, video, audio recording, or text advertisement. The disclosure must appear in a format corresponding to the ad itself: a television commercial may need an on-screen or spoken notice, while a printed flyer would use a written label.

Key points

• Multiple media formats are covered. The measure addresses images, video, audio, and text rather than focusing exclusively on synthetic faces or voices.
• The scope reaches large and small advertisers. A national company’s television campaign and a local restaurant’s promotional flyer may both fall within the rule.
• The effect can extend beyond state borders. The location where an ad was produced is not the only consideration. Material created elsewhere may need a disclosure if it is expected to air in Pennsylvania.
• Several exceptions are included. Parody, satire, commentary, criticism, and content that is “evidently fictional” are carved out in the law’s wording.

The central uncertainty: what counts as significant modification?

The most difficult issue may be the boundary between ordinary digital editing and a legally meaningful AI alteration. Advertisers already use automated tools for retouching, background replacement, voice work, copywriting, and image enhancement. The material does not establish how much AI involvement is enough to trigger the disclosure requirement.

The law also appears to focus on synthetic content used in a way that creates a false consumer perception about a product or service. That language suggests that simply using AI may not be the only relevant factor. The likely question is whether the resulting ad could mislead people about what is being sold. Yet the source leaves unresolved what qualifies as a false perception and who will make that determination.

Why the law matters

For advertisers, the immediate challenge is operational. Companies may need to track where AI was used, determine whether an edit was significant, and reserve space for disclosures when a campaign targets Pennsylvania. Large brands could handle this through standardized templates, while small businesses may depend on advertising platforms and design software to provide clearer compliance support.

For consumers, a label can offer useful context when an ad relies on an artificial person, voice, setting, or visual event to create credibility. It may help distinguish synthetic presentation from conventional production. However, disclosure will be less useful if labels differ widely or merely state that AI was involved without explaining the nature of that involvement.

Pennsylvania’s approach could also become a reference point for other states considering similar requirements. It shows policymakers starting with transparency and consumer protection as generative tools become common in marketing. Still, the law’s practical boundaries will depend heavily on later enforcement and interpretation of terms such as “significantly modified,” “evidently fictional,” and “false consumer perception.”

Source: The Verge AI