Pennsylvania AI Advertising Disclosure Law Reaches the Radio Spot From 21 December

The Pennsylvania AI advertising disclosure law does something its neighbours’ laws do not: it follows the sound. From 21 December 2026, an advertisement that uses AI-made audio to give listeners a false idea of what they are buying must say so out loud, in the ad itself, at a pace people can follow (Voice Over Herald). Governor Josh Shapiro signed Senate Bill 806, the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Advertising Act, on 22 October 2026; as Act 99 of 2026 it takes effect 60 days later (JD Supra). Information verified through 8 November 2026.

Pennsylvania joins a small, mismatched club. New York’s synthetic performer disclosure requirement took effect on 9 June 2026, and California’s law follows on 1 January 2027 (JD Supra). Three states, three different tests — and national advertisers now have to pass all of them at once.

How the Pennsylvania AI advertising disclosure law decides a label is due

Start with the definition. The act defines synthetic content as information — “including an image, video, audio clip or text” — that has been significantly modified or generated by artificial intelligence (JD Supra). A fully synthetic voice qualifies. So does a human read heavily reworked by software (Voice Over Herald).

But AI use alone triggers nothing. The ban bites only where synthetic content creates a false consumer perception about the nature, origin or authenticity of the goods or services advertised, and the advertiser publishes it without a clear and conspicuous disclosure (JD Supra). Inside Radio makes the same point for broadcasters: the requirement “doesn’t automatically require a disclosure simply because AI was used to produce a commercial” (Inside Radio). A fabricated testimonial in a synthetic voice is the textbook case; a routine synthetic read of accurate prices may not be (Inside Radio).

When a label is due, its wording is fixed: the ad must state that it “contains content that was modified or generated using artificial intelligence” (JD Supra). It must appear at the first instance the synthetic content is presented, in the same medium as that content, and — where technically feasible — be permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove (JD Supra). For audio, Pennsylvania radio AI ad disclosure has an audibility standard written into it: the disclosure must be “delivered in a volume and cadence sufficient for a consumer to hear and comprehend” (Inside Radio). A speed-read legal line buried at the end will not do.

Three kinds of content are exempt: content evidently fictional from its content or context, parody, satire, commentary or criticism, and content limited to text (JD Supra). Enforcement sits with the Attorney General or a district attorney, who can seek an injunction or a civil action; a court may impose a fine of up to $3,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs (JD Supra). There is no private right of action for listeners (Voice Over Herald). The Attorney General’s office, per the House Appropriations Committee fiscal note, expects to hire a deputy attorney general and a technologist to enforce the act (JD Supra).

AI voice clone advertising disclosure is where Pennsylvania goes further

New York and California built their laws around performers. Their rules reach synthetic performers — digital performers that do not depict an identifiable person (JD Supra). New York’s law does not apply to audio-only advertisements at all, and California’s covers a made-up narrator’s voice but not a clone recognisable as a real person (Voice Over Herald).

Pennsylvania never mentions performers. It regulates content. That single drafting choice pulls in an audio clip on its own — and pulls in the clone. As Loeb & Loeb’s Libby O’Neill put it, an AI-altered real person giving a fake endorsement, which New York and California do not reach, may be reached here (Voice Over Herald). AI voice clone advertising disclosure is therefore not a side effect of this law. It is close to its centre.

The trade-off runs the other way as well. Because the trigger is deception about the product, an AI spokesperson delivering accurate information may need no label in Pennsylvania (Voice Over Herald). Broader about what counts; narrower about when anyone has to say anything. Both halves will be tested.

Uncertainty is the honest footnote. Attorneys note the act leaves open what counts as a false consumer perception, and how much modification counts as significant (Inside Radio). In Senate debate, Senator Jarrett Coleman argued that advertising has always used enhancement — professional lighting, idealised staging, models in perfect conditions — and that the standard gives little guidance on where enhancement ends and deception begins (JD Supra). Broadcasters face a sharper version of the problem: unlike New York and California, Pennsylvania does not expressly exempt outlets that merely carry third-party commercials from networks or syndicators (Inside Radio).

None of that stopped the bill. Senate Bill 806 passed the Pennsylvania Senate 48-2 and the House 163-40, after unanimous committee approval in both chambers (Inside Radio). Its sponsor, Senator Nick Pisciottano, framed it in one line: “Consumers deserve to know if AI is being used to create a false impression about a product or service” (Inside Radio). He also confirmed political ads are not covered — this is about selling things, not candidates (Voice Over Herald).

Ballard Spahr’s Alan Kaplinsky and John Culhane advised advertisers on 2 November to start “implementing appropriate disclosure controls before the December 21 effective date,” checking agencies and vendors too (Voice Over Herald). The date lands mid-holiday season, with no state guidance yet on what a spoken tag should sound like (Voice Over Herald).

Analysis: the patchwork is the story. A synthetic car-dealer spot aired across the Northeast now faces a performer test in New York, a prominence test in California, and a deception test in Pennsylvania — with the strictest practical demand, a label you can actually hear, coming from the state with the smallest fine.

Photo: Farragutful, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Sources

1. https://www.voiceoverherald.com/pennsylvania-ai-ad-law-audio-voice-actors-sb-806/
2. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/pennsylvania-requires-disclosures-for-9863678/
3. https://www.insideradio.com/free/pennsylvania-stations-face-new-ai-ad-disclosure-requirements/article_ffa27b60-0f86-4071-b6c4-ae300574ee00.html
4. https://siliconnoon.com/pennsylvanias-ai-ad-label-law-starts-dec-21-fines-capped-at-3000/