Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves AI disclosure bill after debate over private lawsuits and enforcement
Summary
The Delaware House passed HB 3‑06, a transparency rule that requires clear disclosure when consumers interact with AI chatbots or avatars in commercial settings. Debate focused on enforcement, the scope of a private right of action and whether the bill could disadvantage small businesses; the bill passed as amended.
Representative Romer’s consumer‑protection bill requiring disclosure when businesses use automated conversational agents cleared the House after extended debate and two amendments.
The House approved House Bill 3‑06 as amended by House Amendment 1 (which adds an optional "safe harbor" disclosure phrasing) and House Amendment 3 (which clarifies that statutory damages remain capped at $1,000 but that actual damages are not capped) by roll call. The chief clerk reported the final tally as 25 yes, 12 no, 1 not voting and 3 absent; the Speaker declared the bill passed.
Why it mattered: Sponsor Representative Romer said the bill is a "narrow consumer protection update" intended to ensure people know when they are "interacting with a computer, not a human," and that it does not regulate how companies build AI. She described the measure as focused on transparency in commercial interactions where automated tools might reasonably be mistaken for humans.
How it works: As amended, the measure requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure in consumer‑facing commercial interactions where a "reasonable person" might be misled. Representative Romer said the bill defines "clear and conspicuous" to cover text, voice and hybrid interfaces and provides an optional safe‑harbor disclosure that businesses may use but are not required to.
Key exchanges and concerns: Representative Yerrick questioned enforcement and the private right of action, arguing the bill could force many companies into litigation: "With 200,000,000 entities and growing, it's... they're going to be guilty until proven innocent with this," he said while warning the private right of action could invite litigation against Delaware‑incorporated small businesses. Romer and the sponsor's allies answered that the bill integrates with Delaware's existing deceptive trade practice remedies and that private suits have not proliferated in states with similar laws.
Deputy Attorney General Bridal Canfield of the Department of Justice's Consumer Protection Unit said the proposed remedies align with existing statute (Title 6, chapter 25) and explained how Delaware's deceptive‑trade‑practice provisions have historically been applied. Canfield said private suits under state code are an available enforcement mechanism when scale exceeds the capacity of centralized public enforcement.
Sponsor response and amendment: Romer emphasized the measure is intended to be operationally predictable for businesses, adding the safe harbor option at industry request so firms can implement disclosures consistent with branding. Representative Lynn and others pressed for clarity on damages language; House Amendment 3 was adopted to make clear actual damages are not capped at $1,000 while statutory damages remain limited.
Next steps: With the House passage, HB 3‑06 will move to the Senate (or, if it originated there, follow the remaining legislative steps); sponsors said they will monitor implementation and, if needed, revisit enforcement language.
Quotes used in this article are taken verbatim from the House proceedings as recorded in the official transcript. The article attributes statements to the speakers who made them on the House floor.
