Prohibits the deployment of a stealth crawler in a manner that would damage, impair or burden the operation of a covered news source or otherwise cause a news source economic harm.
This bill would create a new article in the General Business Law called the “New York stealth crawler prohibition act.” It defines a “crawler” broadly to include software, bots, user agents, and AI agents that retrieve, scan, index, scrape, or otherwise access websites. The bill focuses on “covered news sites,” meaning qualifying print or digital publications that perform a journalism-like public-information function, regularly publish or update content, and have at least 1,000 monthly active users or subscribers in New York.
The core prohibition makes it unlawful to deploy a “stealth crawler” against a covered news site in a way that damages, impairs, burdens, or economically harms the site. A stealth crawler is one that accesses a covered news site without prior disclosure of its identity and purpose, including by failing to provide a valid user-agent string and a disclosure of the crawler’s specific nature and purpose. The bill is aimed at preventing undisclosed automated access to news content, including by AI systems and other scraping tools.
The bill would give journalism providers a private right of action. A covered news site could seek an injunction, recover actual damages or $10,000 per violation, whichever is greater, and recover attorneys’ fees. It also creates a pre-suit subpoena process allowing a journalism provider to seek identifying information from a service provider and require preservation of relevant evidence. The bill would amend state business law and add enforceable rights and remedies for news organizations against certain automated online access practices.
Overall sentiment from the available context appears supportive of protecting news publishers from undisclosed scraping and AI-driven content harvesting, though there is no committee transcript or recorded vote history to show formal debate. The bill’s framing suggests concern about economic harm to journalism and the need for transparency by automated crawlers. Likely points of contention include the breadth of the definitions, especially the inclusion of AI agents and the requirement to disclose purpose, as well as the potential impact on legitimate web indexing, research, and internet access services.
The bill would amend the General Business Law by adding a new Article 48 and would create a new statutory cause of action for journalism providers whose covered news sites are accessed by stealth crawlers. It would impose disclosure requirements on automated crawlers, authorize injunctive relief and statutory damages, and allow pre-action subpoenas to identify alleged violators through service providers. The measure would affect news publishers, website operators, AI companies, web scraping tools, and internet service or platform providers that may receive subpoenas or be implicated in identifying users.
The available context suggests a generally protective and pro-newsroom sentiment, with the bill designed to respond to concerns about undisclosed scraping, bot traffic, and AI systems using news content without transparency. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded opposition or support to measure formally. Based on the text alone, the bill appears motivated by concern for journalism economics and digital content integrity rather than by a broader regulatory agenda.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad definition of “crawler,” which expressly includes AI agents and other automated tools, and the requirement that crawlers disclose both identity and specific purpose before accessing covered news sites. Critics may argue that these requirements could burden legitimate search, indexing, research, and internet access functions, while supporters are likely to emphasize the need to prevent hidden scraping that harms publishers financially. Another likely issue is the statutory damages provision of $10,000 per violation and the subpoena mechanism, which could be viewed as strong enforcement tools but also as potentially overbroad or litigation-friendly.