We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Bot or real person? – a question most online users
probably don't ask themselves when interacting online or seeing
how many followers a person has on a social media platform. Most
likely, online users don't know whether they are talking to a
"bot," especially if they think they are communicating on
or browsing an interactive site. This lack of transparency may be
due to the fact that there is currently no enacted law that relates
to the disclosure of the use of automated bot accounts on social
media.
On Sept. 28, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown approved Senate Bill No.
1001, which will protect consumers and voters in California from
being misled by these bots in certain circumstances. SB 1001
defines a bot as an "automated online account where all or
substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not
the result of a person." This bill bans bots from pretending
to be real people when interacting with California consumers and
voters if the bot is trying to incentivize a purchase of a good or
service, or to influence a vote in an election. This bill will be
effective July 1, 2019.
Bot advertising is far more pervasive than social media users
may be aware. A 2017 study by the University of Southern California
and Indiana University found that an estimated 48 million users on
Twitter were automated accounts. Also in 2017, Facebook told
investors that up to 60 million bots may be on the site. The
California Legislature recognized that bots on social media sites
can be used to skew viewers' perceptions about the popularity
of certain products and services online, as well as the popularity
of electoral candidates. These skewed perceptions may be why a
person buys something or votes for someone.
To continue using bots in such a capacity, persons and companies
will be required to make a disclosure that is "clear,
conspicuous, and reasonably designated" to inform persons with
whom the bot communicates that it is a bot and not human. SB 1001
is not a draconian bill that entirely bans the use of bots; rather,
it simply aims to foster transparency for California online users.
This means a person or company that makes the proper disclosure
will not be held liable under the law and can continue to use bots
for advertising purposes.
Companies and individuals engaging in the use of bots online for
commercial transactions should be sure to make the appropriate
disclosures before continuing the advertising practice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
If a restaurant uses a ride-share service such as Uber Eats to deliver food, and the driver gets in a motor vehicle accident, can the restaurant be held liable?
Only days after Indiana's own Purdue University completed one of the biggest upsets of the 2018 college football season, drubbing Ohio State 49-20, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down a different kind of upset.
As a dual graduate of The Ohio State University and a proud Buckeye fan, I was saddened to see Ohio State head football coach Urban Meyer at the center of the latest sports controversy.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
The Pursuit Of "Truth" In Advertising: Social Media (Video)
