Earn consumer confidence
81% of US adults said they were concerned about how companies use their data in Pew’s 2023 survey. Give people a record they can inspect and a way to challenge misuse.
Developing work · IAE Governance Lab · IEEE SA knowledge partnership
AI advertising should show its work.
Follow the effort to connect what an AI system was allowed to do with what it actually did—and the people and companies responsible.
I’m Jay Mandel. I work with Sean Meier on Technical Conformance, Layer 4 of the developing AI Advertising Trust Stack. This page shares our contribution, examples, progress, and the questions still open.
Why companies would adopt it
People want control. Violations can be expensive.
Avoid costly violations
Serious GDPR violations can bring fines up to €20 million or 4% of total annual global turnover, whichever is higher. Regulators can also restrict or ban processing.
Scraping has consequences
The Dutch regulator announced a €30.5 million fine against Clearview AI in September 2024 for illegal collection for facial recognition. Publicly accessible images do not remove privacy obligations.
The commercial proposal: buyers require evidence, platforms check current status, and compliant suppliers earn access to business. The seal makes the record easy to open. It cannot make unlawful collection lawful or protect a company from enforcement.
Scraping is not automatically illegal. The data, legal basis, rights, purpose and jurisdiction determine the obligations. Survey concern does not prove that people will click a seal or that this proposal will increase sales; adoption and consumer use need testing.
Connected standard / interactive proposal
One standard. Every brand. Evidence behind every status.
The ambition: every brand adopts the same standard and links its ads to a shared record. Buyers, platforms and reviewers use that evidence to decide what can run. Select a fictional brand below to see how it could work.
Demonstration only. Fictional brands, records and review results. “In compliance” means passing the draft checks shown here, within the assessed scope. This is not a legal compliance finding or a live certification service.
From one ad to the whole market
Inspect sources, rights, edits and approval.
See which active ads pass, fail or need review.
Review compliance across the assessed campaigns.
Compare the evidence from agencies, tools and platforms.
Track adoption, recurring failures and correction times.
Open a broad status to reach the exact record behind it. Every result needs a defined scope and date. A passing ad cannot certify an entire company.
Shared standardBrand directoryAd + sealVersion receiptReview + correction
No evidence means “not assessed,” not an automatic failure. One failing active ad prevents a passing brand status within that review’s scope.
Brand record / ORCHARD
Orchard Goods
In complianceBoth ad versions have current rights and approval records.
How the mark appears on an ad
Spring Ad, Video 3
Advertisement / AI assisted
CONTENT RECORD◎CHECKEDVIEW EVIDENCEOne shared insignia, with its current status. Click it to inspect the record. A badge alone never proves compliance.
Connected receipt / OG-003
Evidence supports this use
- Source and AI edits disclosed
- US social rights current to 31 Mar 2027
- Authorized approver recorded
- Presence evidence tied to this version
- Version fingerprint and record available
What happens next: Continue approved use. Check again if the asset or permission changes.
Public: decision, scope, version and review status. Auditor: private identity and supporting evidence. People can challenge the record; the reviewer records the response.
The evidence we already expect
Burgers. Elevators. Diamonds. Same ordinary questions.
What went into the grinder?
Beef can combine many inputs. An AI ad can combine a real photo, a synthetic voice, and licensed work. The ingredients need a history.
cyclonebill / Wikimedia Commons · source · CC BY-SA 2.0 · displayed at smaller size.
.jpg){kind=link}
Who checked it—and when?
The certificate records an inspection, its date, and validity. An ad receipt should make approval and authority equally easy to inspect.
NWRGeek / Wikimedia Commons · source · CC0 · historical 2012–2013 certificate.
Same carat. Same story?
Mined or lab-grown? What supports the origin and quality claims? Appearance alone cannot answer the questions behind a purchase.
Public-domain diamond photograph · Rawpixel / CC0 source.
Art and used cars make the same point: a convincing Picasso needs evidence, and “one careful owner” invites a request for service history. These analogies explain why we ask for records; they do not guarantee truth or safety.
The whole effort
From ethical principles to checkable behavior.
The Institute for Advertising Ethics Governance Lab identifies emerging risks and develops practical standards for accountable advertising, with IEEE Standards Association identified as a knowledge partner. The developing AI Advertising Trust Stack brings governance, technical evidence, and accountability into the same conversation.
Our Layer 4 contribution addresses the paper trail. It does not replace the other workstreams or speak on behalf of IAE or IEEE. The broader effort needs advertisers, creators, technologists, platforms, auditors, and people affected by advertising to help define what justified trust requires.
Set the stops.
Define who can approve, when work must stop, and how problems escalate.
Attach the proof.
Record sources, permission, decisions, changes, and evidence bound to a version.
Use the record.
Audit, investigate disputes, assign responsibility, and support correction.
These are the adjacent workstreams relevant to this example, not a complete specification of the entire Trust Stack. Read IAE’s official Governance Lab overview ↗.
Progress update · 11 October 2026
What we have—and what we still need.
Current status: working proposal and illustrative prototypes.
This is developing work, not an adopted IEEE standard, certification scheme, or completed end-to-end system.
A practical evidence record.
- Five questions covering origin, permitted use, responsibility, changes, and checking.
- A fictional Spring Ad receipt and fair-review scenarios.
- Record marks on social ads, video, and editorial content.
- A public source register crediting contributions and identifying gaps.
- A working byte-level fingerprint check for this presentation.
The controls behind the claim.
- Minimum evidence and the point where the record starts.
- Independent verification and routes to challenge a record.
- Authority, private identity, and proof-of-presence controls.
- Signed approval and C2PA integration across ad-tech handoffs.
- Retention, revocation, re-review, cost, and accessibility for smaller creators.
The next discussion is the IAE event at Omnicom on 12 October 2026. The goal is to test requirements and open questions, not announce that these controls are finished.
Progress updates on this page are dated and added as the work develops. No automated reporting or mailing-list subscription is implied.
Layer 4 · five questions
The receipt should answer ordinary questions.
| Question | What the evidence should show | How someone uses it |
|---|---|---|
| Where did it come from? | Creator, tools, sources, AI use, and gaps. | Check origin, credit, and ownership claims. |
| What can it be used for? | Consent, license, region, purpose, expiry, withdrawal. | Test a disputed use against permission. |
| Who is responsible? | Decision, approver authority, presence evidence, company. | Find who controlled the step and hear their response. |
| What changed? | Edits, transformations, version fingerprint. | Determine if a later version exceeded approval. |
| How can it be checked? | Public checks and protected supporting evidence. | Audit without publishing private identities. |
Provenance is not truth. A presence check is not authority. A label alone is not permission. Those distinctions shape what the record must prove.
Small mark · deeper evidence
See how the record could appear in real content.
Our everyday examples start with diamonds, art, used cars, beef, and elevator certificates. We already ask for origin, permission, history, and inspection evidence elsewhere. Why should data or AI be different?
Contributions and boundaries
Different expertise. A shared record.
Jay Mandel
Narrative, permission and accountability questions, stakeholder use, and the connection between evidence and decisions.
Sean Meier
Layer 4 technical collaboration: source collection, detection signals, privacy-preserving approval checks, and record carriage.
Operational alignment
Compare what a person permitted with what the system actually did. Assign a correction owner and check the result.
C2PA and other standards provide existing components. The full record and governance around it remain proposals. ChatGPT assisted with this page, deck, and prototype implementation. The source register distinguishes actual production facts, attributed discussion, research references, and fictional examples.
Read the contributor and source table ↗Proposal for discussion
A LUMAscape that rewards evidence.
Creators disclose. Brands and agencies require proof. Platforms carry it. Auditors test it. Buyers and insurers evaluate it. People and rights holders can inspect and challenge it.
The proposal is to value checkable evidence in purchasing, distribution, and risk review. That is not a promise of lower insurance premiums, guaranteed reach, or an existing certification.
Explore the ecosystem and incentives ↗Follow the AI Advertising Trust Stack work.
Read the progress. Bring a real question.
What should the minimum record contain? Who should verify it? What would make it useful to your team or fairer to an affected person?