AI The public comment period on the matter closed Friday.
WASHINGTON, August 3, 2026 – Opponents of a Federal Trade Commission proposal that would treat certain artificial intelligence outputs as potentially deceptive under consumer protection law argue the effort amounts to unconstitutional speech regulation.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson issued the proposed policy statement on July 1, saying
__the commission wanted to hear__The proposal was issued pursuant to executive order 14365, signed by Trump in December 2025, which directed the FTC to issue a policy statement to clarify how Section 5 of the FTC Act applies to AI models, and whether state laws requiring alterations to AI outputs might conflict with federal law.
The EO specifically names Colorado’s revised Artificial Intelligence Act, arguing state requirements “banning algorithmic discrimination may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a differential treatment or impact on protected groups.” The FTC inquiry reprises a similar argument against state laws that may interpose objectives, “such as so-called ‘equity.’”
The public comment period on the matter closed Friday.
Free Press, a nonprofit media advocacy organization, argued the FTC is exceeding its statutory authority and violating the First Amendment by attempting to police “ideological” AI content under a statute meant to address false advertising.
Shilpa Jindia, the group’s policy counsel, said the FTC is trying to “anoint itself judge and jury over AI content.” Jindia argued the proposal would let the government “unconstitutionally suppress certain viewpoints and elevate others” while doing nothing to address discriminatory outputs affecting protected classes.
Multiple stakeholders, including the trade lawyers’ group, the American Association for Justice, urged the FTC to withdraw the policy statement.
AAJ President **John Bey **argued the policy wrongly suggests that it can preempt state law, noting that state law has been the only avenue for Americans harmed by AI to seek accountability.
Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy, at the Consumer Federation of America, also challenged the preemption theory on similar grounds to other critics, noting the FTC Act contains no express preemption provision and arguing that only Congress, not a non-binding agency policy statement, has authority to override state law.
Winters pointed to repeated congressional failures to pass similar AI preemption measures as evidence the approach lacks support. “It’s unpopular, unreasonable, and the last thing we should be doing on AI right now,” he argued.
Writing for the libertarian-leaning R Street Institute, resident senior fellows
Spence Purnell and
Adam Thierer, argued the FTC’s approach to ideological content went too far.
“The FTC’s proposed policy statement potentially opens a real Pandora’s Box of problems in the way the government regulates how AI companies ‘may be manipulating the behavior of their AI systems contrary to reasonable consumer expectations for objectivity and accuracy,’” the group wrote.
The FTC statement is one of several preemption focused actions set in motion by executive order 14365.
The order also directed the Justice Department to establish an AI litigation task force within 30 days, its sole responsibility being to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with new policy.
It separately directed the Federal Communications Commission to initiate a proceeding on whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting state laws.