California SB 1001: What the Bot Disclosure Law Actually Requires

California's SB 1001: Exploring the True Requirements of the Bot Disclosure Law

Title: California SB 1001: The Actual Requirements of the Bot Disclosure Law

California's Bolstering Online Transparency Act, known as SB 1001, passed in 2018 and became effective on July 1, 2019. Often misconstrued as a mandate for chatbots to disclose their identity, the law actually focuses on preventing specific types of deception and offering disclosure as the method to avoid liability. This article delves into the nuances of the Act and clarifies its scope and application.

The Core of SB 1001: Prohibition of Deception

The Act is found in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17940-17943. Section 17941(a) contains the prohibition, which requires three conditions to be met:

1. A person uses a bot to communicate or interact with another person online in California.

2. The person uses the bot with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity.

3. The person's intent is to knowingly deceive the person about the content of the communication, either to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election.

The dual mental states and purpose limitation make it clear that not all bots are subject to the Act. For instance, a support bot that never pretends to be human and has no intention of misleading anyone is outside the statute's purview, even if it doesn't explicitly declare itself as a bot.

Defining a Bot and Scope of Application

Section 17940 defines a bot as an automated online account where all or substantially all actions or posts are not the result of a person. While the definition is written with social media in mind, it applies to various forms of automated online accounts, including chat widgets, voice agents, and API-driven assistants. The term "online" in the statute is broadly defined, encompassing any public-facing internet website, web application, or digital application.

The Purpose Limitation: Narrow Scope of the Act

The purpose limitation is the key to understanding which bots are covered by SB 1001. The deception must be aimed at incentivizing a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or influencing a vote in an election. This narrows the scope significantly, as many other harmful uses of bots, such as manufacturing grassroots support for a policy or running emotional companionship products, are not covered by the Act.

Disclosure as a Safeguard

The Act offers a safe harbor through disclosure. A person does not violate the statute if they clearly and conspicuously disclose that the communication is from a bot. The disclosure must be reasonably designed to inform the person that they are communicating with a bot. While there is no prescribed form or timing for the disclosure, it must be reasonably designed to inform. Given the relatively low cost and high effectiveness of disclosure, it is generally the sensible default, even when the prohibition does not apply.

Misconceptions and Enforcement

A common misinterpretation is that SB 1001 only applies to platforms with a minimum of ten million unique monthly visitors. However, the Act does not contain this size threshold, as it is found in section 17940, which defines "online platform" and its exemption from the duty. The prohibition itself, found in section 17941, does not have a size test.

Enforcement of SB 1001 has been minimal, as the Act does not create a private right of action or name an enforcement agency. It is more of a drafting reference and a compliance baseline than a source of litigation. However, the landscape has changed, with California introducing broader disclosure and provenance duties that come with enforcement.