Publishers urge Prime Minister to back bot transparency legislation
Publishers including the Daily Mail have urged the Prime Minister to support legislation requiring online bots to identify who operates them and how they use accessed information. They warn that anonymous bots are already taking journalism without payment, weakening the market for trusted news and threatening the reliable material on which AI systems depend.
The proposed Bill, put forward by Conservative shadow minister Damian Hinds, is due for its second reading in the Commons and would create an Ofcom register of bots so publishers can decide whether to admit them. Signatories include executives from the Times, Financial Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, Guardian, Condé Nast and Reddit; bots now generate more than half of global web traffic, much of it scraping data for AI. Labour MP Allison Gardner and the News Media Association’s chief executive also backed greater transparency, amid earlier government proposals to ease copyright rules for AI firms.
- Publishers want bots to disclose who runs them and what data they access.
- A proposed Bill would establish an Ofcom register of bots.
- They warn unpaid scraping could undermine journalism and AI data quality.
New here? Start with this
Bots are software that carry out tasks online, such as gathering information from websites. Some are used by artificial intelligence companies to collect material for training or answering questions, and they can make up a large share of internet traffic.
News publishers say this can include articles and other reporting, often without payment or clear information about who is collecting it. Publishers depend on subscriptions, sales and advertising to fund journalism, while AI services rely on accurate information from sources such as news sites.
The proposed law would require bots to say who operates them and how they use information, with Ofcom keeping a register. It is part of a wider debate about how copyright rules should apply when AI companies use material published online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that bots should disclose who operates them and how they use accessed information, so publishers can make informed decisions about access and negotiate fair terms for journalism used by AI systems. They say scraping without payment risks weakening trusted news organisations and, over time, the supply of reliable material that AI depends on.
The case against
Critics could argue that a mandatory register and publisher control over bot access may add compliance costs and give established media companies greater power to restrict automated access to online information. They may favour addressing copyright disputes through existing law or targeted rules, preserving room for research, innovation and useful services while avoiding broad barriers to data access.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Mail publisher joins calls for PM to tackle threat to journalism from stealth bots”.