Political ads made with AI: they have to tell you

It is a voter’s right written as an advertiser’s duty: if a paid campaign communication, ad or message was made or retouched with artificial intelligence, it has to say so. The law does not ban using AI in politics; it requires disclosing it.

Every voter who sees political advertising. The duty falls on political action committees and on any person making a disbursement to finance a communication for electoral purposes or an electoral communication, as those terms are defined in Article 2.004 of Act 222-2011.

• That there be a disbursement financing the communication. Article 7.007 is triggered when a political action committee disburses to finance a communication through the media it lists, or when any person disburses to finance a communication for electoral purposes or an electoral communication under Article 2.004.Verified against the official source
• That the communication was generated or altered, partially or completely, with Artificial Intelligence systems, including Generative Artificial Intelligence. The law covers both what is generated from scratch and what is altered.Verified against the official source
• If the communication is transmitted by radio or over the internet, the statement must also be by audio, under Article 7.009.Verified against the official source

• The law publishes no document list or form: it creates a disclosure duty inside the ad itself and an offence, not a procedure. If you are going to complain, what helps is evidence of the ad — screenshot, recording, link, date and medium — but the law neither requires nor lists it.

1. 1

   Step 1: What counts as artificial intelligence, per the law

   The definition is broad and worth reading in full. The law defines Artificial Intelligence as “a field of computing focused on creating systems and programs capable of performing tasks that require human intelligence”, and says these systems may include capabilities such as machine learning, natural language processing, logical reasoning and decision-making. And it expressly adds that the definition shall include Generative Artificial Intelligence, understood as “any system with the capacity to autonomously produce or generate original content in the form of text, images, audio, video, multimedia material or other digital content, from instructions, specific requests or data supplied by a person”.

2. 2

   Step 2: The notice in the ad: what it must say

   The new Article 7.007(d) is short and direct: if the communication was generated or altered, partially or completely, with Artificial Intelligence systems, including Generative Artificial Intelligence, then in addition to complying with the preceding subsections, the communication must clearly indicate that it was generated or altered, partially or completely, as the case may be, with Artificial Intelligence systems. Note “partially”: a real ad with a single AI-retouched image falls inside.

3. 3

   Step 3: On radio and the internet, additionally, out loud

   Article 7.009 already required radio communications to include an audio statement with the name of the person or committee that paid for the communication and the name of any related organization responsible for the content, and provided that those requirements apply equally to any campaign communication transmitted over the Internet. Act 105-2026 added one sentence: if the communication was generated or altered, partially or completely, with Artificial Intelligence systems, the ad must state so by audio declaration.

4. 4

   Step 4: Where it applies and where it does not

   The duty hangs on a disbursement, not on any post. Article 7.007 is triggered when a political action committee disburses to finance a communication through a radio or television station, cable or satellite television, over the Internet, by computers, newspaper, magazine, billboard, mailing to five hundred (500) or more people of the same type of message, or any other kind of political ad to the general public; or when any person disburses to finance a communication for electoral purposes or an electoral communication as defined in Article 2.004. We did not read those definitions, so we will not tell you whether the meme your uncle shared falls inside.

5. 5

   Step 5: The offence, with both of its limits intact

   It is easy to overstate this part, so we quote it whole. Article 12.7 of the Electoral Code provides that any person who maliciously, on a second or more occasions, includes, keeps or transmits by any means information, data, documents, forms or images that are false, altered or created with artificial intelligence systems without a clear and legible notice, or that do not correspond to reality and truth, in any electronic system provided and operated by the Commission, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year or a five hundred dollar ($500) fine for each false datum, information or image, or both penalties at the Court’s discretion. Both limits are part of the rule: it must be on a second or more occasions, and in an electronic system of the Commission.

6. 6

   Step 6: A neighbouring rule almost nobody knows

   The same Article 7.007 the Act amended carries, in subsection (e), a price-gouging prohibition: no person selling space on television, radio, cable or satellite television, newspaper, magazine, internet or billboard to a party, aspirant or candidate, or to their committees or agents, for campaign purposes, may charge a rate for that space exceeding the rate charged for the use of that space for other purposes.

Act 222-2011 is the political campaign oversight law, and the Article 12.7 that Act 105-2026 amended belongs to the Electoral Code, whose agency is the State Elections Commission. The Act we read names the Donations and Expenditures Oversight Board only because the renumbering moved it to definition 40, and it describes no complaint procedure. We did not read the rest of Act 222-2011, so we will not invent a counter for you: ask at the State Elections Commission. The law publishes no address, phone or portal.

• Believing the law bans using artificial intelligence in campaigns: it does not ban it, it requires clearly declaring it in the communication.
• Thinking it applies only to content generated from scratch: the law says “generated or altered, partially or completely”.
• Assuming a written notice suffices on radio or the internet: Article 7.009 requires it also be stated by audio declaration.
• Believing any political post on social media is covered: Article 7.007 is triggered by a disbursement financing the communication.
• Retelling the Article 12.7 offence without its limits: it requires malice, a second or more occasions, and an electronic system provided and operated by the Commission.
• Thinking the fine is $500 total: the law says five hundred dollars ($500) for each false datum, information or image.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE)

  CEE

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov