Does the B.O.T. Act apply to my customer-service chatbot?

The Act targets bots used to incentivize a purchase or sale, or to influence a vote, while hiding that they are bots. A sales or marketing chatbot talking to people in California sits squarely in that scope. A clear, conspicuous bot disclosure removes the question entirely — there is no liability for a bot that identifies itself.

My company isn't in California. Am I still covered?

The statute is about communicating with persons in California. If Californians can reach your bot, its location — and yours — doesn't move you out of scope.

What counts as a clear and conspicuous disclosure?

A disclosure reasonably designed to inform the person they are interacting with a bot: visible in the conversation itself, not in separate fine print or a linked policy page. A persistent badge plus a first-message notice is the pattern that satisfies it.

Is SB 243 the same law?

No. SB 243, in effect since January 1, 2026, is California's companion-chatbot law. It targets bots that simulate ongoing human relationships and expressly excludes bots used only for customer service, business operations, or productivity. If you run a support or sales bot, the B.O.T. Act is your law; SB 243 most likely is not.

Learn

California's bot disclosure law: the B.O.T. Act (SB 1001)

California B.O.T. Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17940–17943 (SB 1001)

Updated July 20, 2026

California was the first US state to require bots to identify themselves. The B.O.T. Act (Business and Professions Code §§ 17940–17943, enacted as SB 1001) has been in force since July 1, 2019: using a bot to communicate with a person in California, with the intent to mislead about its artificial identity in order to push a sale or influence a vote, is unlawful without a clear, conspicuous disclosure that it is a bot.

For commercial chatbots this remains the most relevant US disclosure rule in 2026, and the fix is the same disclosure pattern the EU AI Act expects: say clearly, on the chat surface, that the visitor is talking to a bot.

When it applies

In force since July 1, 2019.

The obligation

It is unlawful to use a bot to communicate with a person in California with the intent to mislead about its artificial identity in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services, or to influence a vote, without a clear, conspicuous disclosure that it is a bot.

The disclosure pattern it expects

A disclosure that is clear, conspicuous, and reasonably designed to inform the person they are interacting with a bot. Disclosed's persistent badge plus first-message notice meets this on every page where the widget loads.

Readiness checklist

Any bot used in sales, marketing, or persuasion contexts identifies itself as a bot.
The disclosure is clear and conspicuous within the conversation, not in separate fine print.
The disclosure appears wherever Californians can reach the bot.
Disclosure records are retained to evidence the conspicuous disclosure.

Common questions

Does the B.O.T. Act apply to my customer-service chatbot?: The Act targets bots used to incentivize a purchase or sale, or to influence a vote, while hiding that they are bots. A sales or marketing chatbot talking to people in California sits squarely in that scope. A clear, conspicuous bot disclosure removes the question entirely — there is no liability for a bot that identifies itself.
My company isn't in California. Am I still covered?: The statute is about communicating with persons in California. If Californians can reach your bot, its location — and yours — doesn't move you out of scope.
What counts as a clear and conspicuous disclosure?: A disclosure reasonably designed to inform the person they are interacting with a bot: visible in the conversation itself, not in separate fine print or a linked policy page. A persistent badge plus a first-message notice is the pattern that satisfies it.
Is SB 243 the same law?: No. SB 243, in effect since January 1, 2026, is California's companion-chatbot law. It targets bots that simulate ongoing human relationships and expressly excludes bots used only for customer service, business operations, or productivity. If you run a support or sales bot, the B.O.T. Act is your law; SB 243 most likely is not.

Related guides

See also the other jurisdictions: EU AI Act, Article 50(1) · Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189) · Utah AI Policy Act

Is your chatbot actually ready?

Six questions, an instant verdict, free.

Run the free check Start the 14-day trial

Just need the deadline handled? The one-time EUR 129 compliance pack covers a single chatbot with no subscription.

Disclosed provides compliance tooling and records; this document is not legal advice. Review it with your counsel before relying on it.