Will California's New Bot Law Be More Than Just a Statement?
California passed a new law prohibiting the use of deceptive bots to sell goods and services or influence election, but some think enforcement may be a struggle.
October 05, 2018 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
California wants all of the bots in the room to please stand up. Last week the state enacted a bill that makes it illegal to use undeclared bots to incentivize a sale or influence an election. A bot—at least according to California's new law (SB-1001)—is an automated online account where most of the posts or actions taken are not the result of an actual human being.
After bots were used to spread misinformation during the presidential election of 2016, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter were left with the unenviable task of separating flesh-and-blood users from the ghosts in the machine. In an entry posted to the company's blog earlier this week, Twitter said that it challenged an average of 9.4 million accounts each week in the first half of September in an effort to identify automated presences.
Kirk Nahra, a privacy and information specialist with Wiley Rein, doesn't expect law firms to encounter nearly as many cases related to the new bot law. He thinks that California might be more interested in making a statement than having its attorney general chase down fake accounts.
“California passes a million laws related to the internet and privacy and security and those kind of things. Some of them you never hear from again after they're passed. Some of them get picked up in other places,” Nahra said.
The law new doesn't outlaw bots entirely, just those “with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purpose of knowingly deceiving.” Nahra called it a high standard, one unlikely to apply to legitimate companies interested in legal compliance or trouble unsavory entities working outside the system.
“My guess is you probably have some other states that try and do something similar just to make the same kind of statement, but I'll be a little surprised if it changes the behavior of anybody whose behavior we actually care about in this context,” Nahra said.
This rationale might preclude the law from facing the kinds of legal challenges encountered by the net neutrality bill California Gov. Jerry Brown signed on Sunday, which has already been challenged in court. Legitimate businesses are unlikely to argue for their right to deceive costumers and hackers seldom ask permission to continue being hackers.
If anything, Nahra could envision a potential First Amendment argument against the bot law. “I just don't know who the plaintiff is in that case. It's not a Russian hacker who wants to influence a senatorial election out there,” Nahra said.
The law won't officially take effect until July 1, 2019. Nahra thinks the extra padding might be intended to give businesses time to get up to speed. Firms could be called upon to act in an advisory capacity by clients looking to review their legitimate bot use and prevent accidental infractions.
“I could absolutely see that happening with some legitimate companies who use this as just a 'let's make sure we're not doing anything wrong' element. I sort of hope that happens,” Nahra said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250