The Interactive Advertising Bureau has unveiled a draft bill aimed at stopping large-scale AI and scraper-driven copying of publisher material, seeking to protect journalism’s economic sustainability amid rising bot traffic and legal debates.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau this week unveiled draft federal legislation aimed at stopping large-scale automated copying of publisher material by AI systems and third-party scrapers, arguing that unchecked scraping threatens the economics of ad-supported journalism. The proposal, announced by IAB president and chief executive David Cohen at the trade body’s Annual Leadership Meeting in Palm Desert on 2 February, sets out a legal route for publishers to sue bot operators and seek recovery for lost traffic and profits. According to the IAB, the measure is designed to protect publishers’ ability to monetise their work rather than rely on months or years of piecemeal court outcomes. According to the report by Axios and the IAB’s own announcement, the draft is being circulated to congressional staff as the organisation looks for a sponsor in Congress. [2],[3]
At the heart of the draft is a common-law claim of “unjust enrichment”, which the IAB says would let publishers pursue remedies when AI firms use their material without payment. The IAB and its legal team contend unjust enrichment differs from copyright law because it does not allow a fair use defence, so defendants could not rely on that doctrine to excuse large-scale ingestion of publisher content. The IAB’s general counsel framed the approach as a way to address harms that copyright litigation has struggled to remedy quickly. [1],[3]
The draft would give publishers the ability to recover the value of their content or lost revenues, seek injunctions to stop unauthorised use, and recover legal costs. It also contains stricter penalties, potentially treble damages, where bot operators fail to disclose the identity, purpose and scope of their crawlers, misrepresent a scraper as a search indexer, or ignore robots.txt directives. The IAB casts those provisions as deterrents to prevent the commercial harvesting of paywalled or otherwise restricted content. [1],[3]
Independent traffic analyses have provided fuel for the IAB’s urgency. Data compiled by TollBit and reported by Wired and Forbes shows a dramatic rise in visits from AI-driven bots to participating publishers between early 2024 and late 2025, with scrapers increasingly bypassing robots.txt controls and, in aggregate, scraping sites millions of times. TollBit’s analytics product, which tracks what it identifies as AI bot traffic, has been cited by the IAB and in media coverage to quantify the scale of the problem publishers say they face. Those findings underpin the IAB’s argument that current technical signalling such as robots.txt is routinely ignored. [4],[5],[7]
The draft’s critics argue it will face a difficult path in Washington. Legal commentators and IP lawyers note the bill would supplant the fair use defence in cases brought under its common-law theory and warned that the current federal administration’s stated aim of reducing regulatory friction for AI innovation could make congressional passage challenging. Observers also point out that the crowded legislative calendar and competing priorities in Congress mean that even a broadly sympathetic bill can stall absent strong bipartisan sponsorship. According to legal analysis from practitioners quoted in coverage, the proposal may draw pushback from parts of the tech sector and the administration. [1],[2]
Because the IAB is a trade association rather than a regulator, the organisation cannot itself impose fines; instead it is pursuing a legislative remedy and simultaneously leaning on industry norms and self-regulation to raise the reputational and commercial costs of non‑compliance. Industry examples such as the Digital Advertising Alliance show how voluntary frameworks can shape behaviour without statute, but experts warn compliance across the diffuse set of AI developers could remain uneven unless backed by enforceable law. The IAB has signalled it would also consider other routes, including state-level action, though legal advisers caution a patchwork of state laws would complicate compliance. [1],[3]
For publishers, the practical burden under the draft would remain proving that specific AI systems scraped their sites and quantifying the commercial harm. The IAB argues that tools such as TollBit’s bot analytics can provide the evidentiary basis publishers would need to bring claims. Opponents counter that attribution and harm calculations are legally and technically complex and that aggressive statutory remedies could chill legitimate uses of the web for discovery or indexing. The debate over how to distinguish benign indexing from monetised scraping is now being played out at several levels, including regulatory scrutiny in the UK and EU into whether major search and AI firms conflate indexing with model training. [4],[6]
The IAB’s proposal crystallises a wider industry demand for clearer guardrails around how AI systems may use third‑party content. Whether that demand translates into federal law will depend on political will, the outcome of parallel international probes into major platforms’ practices, and how quickly legislators, regulators and courts can agree definitions and enforcement mechanisms. In the meantime, publishers and ad industry groups are pressing both technical and legislative avenues to stop what they characterise as uncompensated commercial harvesting of their work. [2],[5],[3]
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article reports on the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB) recent announcement of the AI Accountability for Publishers Act, unveiled on February 2, 2026, during their Annual Leadership Meeting. This is the earliest known publication date for this specific content, indicating high freshness. ([iab.com](https://www.iab.com/news/iab-releases-draft-legislation-to-address-ai-content-scraping-and-protect-publishers?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
Direct quotes from IAB President and CEO David Cohen are included. These quotes are consistent with those found in the IAB’s official announcement. ([iab.com](https://www.iab.com/news/iab-releases-draft-legislation-to-address-ai-content-scraping-and-protect-publishers?utm_source=openai)) However, the exact earliest usage of these quotes cannot be independently verified, as they are not found in other sources. This raises a concern about the originality of the quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The primary source is the IAB’s official announcement, a reputable industry organisation. However, the article also references secondary sources like Axios and MediaPost, which are generally reliable but may not be as authoritative as the IAB itself. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2026/02/02/iab-ai-accountability-publishers-act?utm_source=openai))
Plausibility check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about the IAB’s proposed legislation align with known industry concerns regarding AI content scraping. However, the article’s reliance on a single source for direct quotes and the lack of independent verification of these quotes raise questions about the completeness and accuracy of the information presented.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article provides timely and relevant information about the IAB’s proposed legislation. However, the heavy reliance on the IAB’s own announcement and the lack of independent verification of direct quotes from IAB President and CEO David Cohen introduce some concerns about the article’s completeness and accuracy. Editors should consider seeking additional independent sources to confirm the details presented.
