Tracked question

What would the FTC’s AI accuracy policy mean for state chatbot laws?

Movement at this check

Stable since last check

The answer has held through 2 checks.

Direction shift
0/100
Agreement
0 pts vs previous check

Agreement over time

90/100
2026-07-21: 80/100 · Restated, not moved: The new version sharpens phrasing (e.g., "not automatically wipe out" vs "not automatically invalidate"), adds explicit emphasis on "algorithmic discrimination / disparate-impact duties" as a target, reorganizes content into bullet lists for readability, and slightly broadens the "less likely to be affected" category. Core conclusions, examples, and qualifications are materially identical. 2026-07-28: 64/100 · Rephrased and condensed with minor structural and citation differences; core conclusions on preemption, output-steering risks, and viability of disclosure/safety laws remain identical. 2026-08-04: 90/100 · Restated, not moved: The new consensus clarifies that the FTC policy is a proposed policy statement rather than a final rule and explicitly notes that state law compliance is not automatically a defense against federal deception claims. The overall conclusions regarding which state laws are vulnerable versus safe remain consistent. 2026-08-11: 90/100 · No material movement 2026-08-18: 90/100 · No material movement 2026-08-25: 75/100 · The update expands on details, structure, and legal nuance (such as distinguishing safety controls from deceptive manipulation and detailing preemption litigation factors), but the core conclusions and legal assessments remain identical. 2026-09-01: 90/100 · No material movement View full chart
You are viewing a historical version. Return to current consensus

Sources

Position Map

Where the models stand

Each row is one part of the answer. The cards show the distinct positions; the model chips show who supports each one.

0/100 Direction Shift · Stable
Shared conclusion

The FTC’s proposed AI accuracy policy would not automatically invalidate state chatbot laws.

Shared position

Supports this conclusion

  • DeepSeek
  • OpenAI
Shared conclusion

Instead, it would create a federal conflict-preemption argument against particular state requirements that allegedly force companies to

Shared position

Instead, it would create a federal conflict-preemption argument against particular state requirements that allegedly force companies to alter otherwise truthful or prompt-faith

  • DeepSeek
  • Gemini
  • OpenAI
Shared conclusion

The proposal’s core theory is that companies marketing AI systems as useful or accurate implicitly represent that the systems are designed t

Shared position

The proposal’s core theory is that companies marketing AI systems as useful or accurate implicitly represent that the systems are designed to provide reliable answers.

  • DeepSeek
  • Gemini
  • OpenAI
Shared conclusion

Secretly steering responses toward undisclosed ideological, political, “equity,” or other objectives could therefore be treated as deceptive

Shared position

Secretly steering responses toward undisclosed ideological, political, “equity,” or other objectives could therefore be treated as deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

  • DeepSeek
  • Gemini
  • OpenAI
See how each model moved across checks
Model position movement by watch date
ModelJul 21Jul 28Aug 04Aug 11Aug 18Aug 25Sep 01
OpenAI
Gemini
Grok — —
DeepSeek — — — — — —

Cite this answer

Ask your own question

Consensus Watch

Run history

90/100 latest agreement
View the full agreement chart

Agreement over time

How strongly the models support the same claims. Every point links to its run below.

100 50 0 2026-07-21: 80/100 · Restated, not moved: The new version sharpens phrasing (e.g., "not automatically wipe out" vs "not automatically invalidate"), adds explicit emphasis on "algorithmic discrimination / disparate-impact duties" as a target, reorganizes content into bullet lists for readability, and slightly broadens the "less likely to be affected" category. Core conclusions, examples, and qualifications are materially identical. 2026-07-28: 64/100 · Rephrased and condensed with minor structural and citation differences; core conclusions on preemption, output-steering risks, and viability of disclosure/safety laws remain identical. 2026-08-04: 90/100 · Restated, not moved: The new consensus clarifies that the FTC policy is a proposed policy statement rather than a final rule and explicitly notes that state law compliance is not automatically a defense against federal deception claims. The overall conclusions regarding which state laws are vulnerable versus safe remain consistent. 2026-08-11: 90/100 · No material movement 2026-08-18: 90/100 · No material movement 2026-08-25: 75/100 · The update expands on details, structure, and legal nuance (such as distinguishing safety controls from deceptive manipulation and detailing preemption litigation factors), but the core conclusions and legal assessments remain identical. 2026-09-01: 90/100 · No material movement 2026-07-21 2026-09-01

Checks

Newest first. Open any saved result to read the full consensus from that date.

  1. Stable
    90/100 agreement

    No meaningful movement detected in this check.

    Open this consensus
  2. Meaningful change
    75/100 agreement

    The update expands on details, structure, and legal nuance (such as distinguishing safety controls from deceptive manipulation and detailing preemption litigation factors), but the core conclusions and legal assessments remain identical.

    Open this consensus
  3. Stable
    90/100 agreement

    No meaningful movement detected in this check.

    Open this consensus
  4. Stable
    90/100 agreement

    No meaningful movement detected in this check.

    Open this consensus
  5. Stable
    90/100 agreement

    Restated, not moved: The new consensus clarifies that the FTC policy is a proposed policy statement rather than a final rule and explicitly notes that state law compliance is not automatically a defense against federal deception claims. The overall conclusions regarding which state laws are vulnerable versus safe remain consistent.

    Open this consensus
  6. Meaningful change
    64/100 agreement

    Rephrased and condensed with minor structural and citation differences; core conclusions on preemption, output-steering risks, and viability of disclosure/safety laws remain identical.

    Open this consensus
  7. Stable
    80/100 agreement

    Restated, not moved: The new version sharpens phrasing (e.g., "not automatically wipe out" vs "not automatically invalidate"), adds explicit emphasis on "algorithmic discrimination / disparate-impact duties" as a target, reorganizes content into bullet lists for readability, and slightly broadens the "less likely to be affected" category. Core conclusions, examples, and qualifications are materially identical.