PubLedge

A supplier that uses generative artificial intelligence to interact with an individual in connection with a consumer transaction must disclose that the individual is interacting with generative artificial intelligence and not a human if the individual asks or otherwise prompts the supplier about whether artificial intelligence is being used. The prompt or question must be a clear and unambiguous request to determine whether the interaction is with a human or with artificial intelligence (§13-77-103(1)). The separate §13-77-104(1) safe harbor concerns enforcement actions for violating §13-77-103 only. It applies if the person's generative artificial intelligence clearly and conspicuously discloses, at the outset and throughout any interaction with an individual in connection with a consumer transaction or the provision of regulated services, that it is generative artificial intelligence, is not human, or is an artificial intelligence assistant. These are alternative safe-harbor forms, not substitutes for the conjunctive on-request content in §13-77-103(1). The safe harbor has no request prerequisite and does not eliminate other state or federal remedies (§13-77-106). These locators refer to the selected current Chapter 77 code retained on October 15, 2026. The corresponding enrolled SB 226 provisions used Chapter 75; the checked disclosure and safe-harbor requirements match across those retained versions. Current disclosure rules under §13-77-104(2), full incorporated-definition coverage and absence of later amendments remain unverified. The supplier and consumer-transaction definitions in §13-11-3 were not newly reviewed by this bridge; the separately retained HB452 definition review does not establish complete current applicability here.

What Counts

• For the on-request duty, the supplier discloses both generative artificial intelligence and not a human in response to the qualifying question or prompt in a consumer transaction
• For the separate safe harbor, the person's GenAI clearly and conspicuously discloses any one of the three statutory alternatives at the outset and throughout the qualifying interaction: generative artificial intelligence, not human, or an artificial intelligence assistant
• The safe-harbor not-human alternative does not require the literal word "AI"; the statutory clarity, conspicuousness, context and timing conditions still apply

What Does Not Count

• Requiring the individual to infer GenAI use from context instead of responding to the qualifying request
• Treating a not-human-only response as the complete §13-77-103(1) disclosure, rather than distinguishing the separate safe-harbor alternative
• Treating a buried notice or an ambiguous label such as "smart assistant" or "automated helper" as sufficient without establishing the safe harbor's clear-and-conspicuous disclosure conditions
• Providing a safe-harbor notice only at the outset without disclosure throughout the interaction
• Requiring a specific magic phrase when the individual has already made a clear and unambiguous qualifying request
• Treating the safe harbor as immunity from violations or remedies outside §13-77-103

Associated records (including proposals)