Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Synthetic Media Political Ads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broadcasters, telecoms urge disclosure-based approach for S.23 and seek liability carve-outs
Summary
Witnesses representing broadcasters and telecommunications providers told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 7 that S.23 should require disclosure by advertisers when political ads include synthetic media but should not impose new liability on broadcasters or wireless carriers; witnesses recommended adding streaming and mobile
Witnesses representing broadcasters and telecommunications providers told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 7 that Vermont’s proposed S.23—intended to regulate synthetic media in political advertising—should place the disclosure obligation on the advertiser and not impose new liability on broadcasters or on wireless carriers.
"We generally support the goals of S.23 and that Vermonters and constituents and viewers should understand that the media that's being presented is kind of synthetic or not," Dylan Zwicky of Leonine Public Affairs, testifying for the New England Connectivity Telecommunications Association, said. Zwicky added that broadcasters are concerned about being made the arbiter of whether a piece of content is synthetic because federal law limits broadcasters' ability to refuse political advertising under the Federal Communications Act.
"If you choose to [sell political advertising], you have to comply with the FCC's [rules]," Zwicky said, citing broadcasters' reliance on Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act. He recommended aligning S.23's language with suggestions from the Vermont Association of Broadcasters: add internet websites, mobile applications and streaming services to the bill's scope so treatment is uniform across platforms, and preserve a carve-out when federal regulation applies.
Nick, identified in testimony as a representative of AT&T, asked for a separate exemption for wireless carriage and other conduit services. "We are not able to identify or track AI content for Google Ads at that stage of the process," he said, and urged the committee to exempt carriers that transmit data but do not originate or decide ad content. He referenced federal definitions (47 U.S.C. § 230 and telecommunications definitions) and submitted proposed exemption language to the committee record.
Witnesses described a practical enforcement difficulty: broadcasters and streaming platforms sell ad packages that distribute the same creative across linear television, station websites and streaming applications. Zwicky said that while some cable operators' ad contracts either require disclosure or prohibit synthetic media, placing responsibility for detection and removal on the broadcaster would expose small local stations to legal claims and administrative burdens.
Committee members asked follow-up questions about how disclosure would be made visible in fast-motion ads (font size/duration), how a station would determine whether media was synthetic, and the distinction between user-posted content on social platforms and paid political ads. Witnesses suggested the disclosure should be the advertiser's responsibility—similar to existing "paid for by" disclaimers—and that the secretary of state or campaign-finance enforcement mechanisms would be the natural avenue for complaints against advertisers.
No vote was taken on S.23 on Feb. 7. Committee leadership asked the Vermont Association of Broadcasters (VAB) and the secretary of state's office to meet and attempt to agree on language the committee could consider; witnesses and senators signaled the bill would require additional days of testimony.
Why it matters: S.23 addresses the growing use of synthetic audio and video in political advertising. The committee's deliberations must balance disclosure and voter information against federal preemption and the operational limits of broadcasters and carriers.
