[bengotow]

I feel the same way. It seems like this is likely to catch playful bots and not truly nefarious bots, because in the latter case the owner / author will sufficiently cover their tracks (and will probably not be in the state of California?)

I'm excited to see legislation in this direction but I wish they'd focus on forcing Twitter, Facebook, etc. (which /are/ in California and can be governed) to display / disclose when they are aware a user is likely a bot, and employ some half-decent detection methods.

[mirimir]

Yes, that's the obvious strategy. They're best placed to test for bots, and arguably they're responsible. And yes, I know, safe-harbor is a thing. But it doesn't protect from allowing illegal ads, so why should it protect from allowing illegal bots?