MSN mandates AI disclosure for partners is the latest signal that major platforms are tightening rules around machine-generated content. The updated MSN AI content policy makes a clear distinction between unreviewed AI-generated content and AI-assisted content, and it sets contractual and technical expectations for publishers and feed partners.
Under the new guidance, partners must guarantee no unreviewed AIGC will be ingested, adopt visible disclosure and byline practices, and prepare for a tagging requirement to be rolled out within the next 6 to 12 months. The policy maps to Microsoft's broader Responsible AI frameworks and ties editorial accountability to platform-level transparency.
What the policy actually requires
MSN's official AI content policy prohibits "Unreviewed AI-generated content (Unreviewed AIGC)" and requires that AI output remain AI-assisted (AIAC). In practice this means purely autonomous outputs that do not undergo downstream human review are disallowed on MSN feeds.
Partners are required to provide a contractual guarantee that no unreviewed AIGC will be ingested. That contractual language elevates the policy from guidance to an enforceable term in commercial relationships, making partner compliance part of feed onboarding and ongoing agreements.
The policy scope is broad: it covers text, image, audio, video, designs and other works. That cross‑modal scope means organizations must audit AI use across editorial, creative and technical teams to ensure every AI-generated asset meets the human review standard.
How MSN defines AI-assisted versus unreviewed AI
MSN defines Unreviewed AIGC as output "generated autonomously by AI" without subsequent human review, while AI-assisted content (AIAC) is output that is created "with human review, material human intervention and/or direction." This explicit definition separates machine-only outputs from those that include human accountability.
To qualify as AIAC, the policy emphasizes "material human intervention," which MSN explains can include providing input or feedback to the model, editing AI results, or performing traditional newsroom tasks such as research, newsgathering or data analysis. Simple cosmetic changes may not be enough; the review must be substantive.
Because the definitions are behavioral rather than tool-specific, publishers cannot rely solely on labeling a tool as "AI" or "human-created", they must demonstrate the human workflows and editorial steps used to create each piece of content when requested by MSN.
Disclosure, bylines, badges and placement guidance
MSN recommends partners use visible disclosure language such as "This content was created with the help of AI," and suggests placing the notice in the article intro or footer. Alternative practical examples include "AI generated, human customized" or "Disclaimer: Part of this content was created with the help of AI, including human input and review."
For author accountability, MSN suggests bylines that indicate human responsibility, examples include "Jane Doe (AI-assisted)" or "By Jane Doe (with AI)." These byline conventions are intended to preserve author accountability and help readers understand the human role in content production.
MSN also favors self-reporting metadata and tagging: partners can mark incoming content as AIAC at the feed or content level using partner tools. Where feed-level tagging isn't possible, partners can disclose in-article at ingestion, MSN’s partner tools UI supports both approaches.
Tagging timeline, metadata and provenance
Currently, tagging AI-assisted content is a recommended best practice, but MSN notes that within the next 6 to 12 months it will ask partners to tag all AI-assisted content. MSN says it will provide advance notice before enforcing the tagging requirement, so partners have time to adapt their ingestion pipelines and metadata models.
MSN’s tagging and badging guidance is aligned with broader Microsoft work on media provenance and Content Credentials (C2PA-based watermarking) used for AI-generated images. These provenance practices support MSN’s transparency goals by offering machine-readable records about creation and modification history for media assets.
Collecting and transmitting AI metadata at ingestion not only satisfies MSN's forthcoming tagging requirement but also helps partners build internal audit trails, demonstrate compliance with contractual guarantees, and improve reader trust by surfacing how content was produced.
Enforcement, prohibited uses and editorial integrity
MSN states that suspected unreviewed AIGC will be assessed and may be demoted or removed at MSN's discretion. Partners that provide unreviewed AIGC are subject to potential suspension or termination, making enforcement a commercial as well as a technical risk.
The policy lists prohibited uses intended to protect editorial integrity: no plagiarizing published works via AI, no rephrasing/remodeling of existing published content republished under a different byline, no high-volume thin rewrites, and no AI use that impersonates specific authors or artists. These restrictions mirror common press standards adapted to AI-era risks.
Because enforcement can include demotion, removal or contract actions, publishers should treat the policy as an operational imperative, establishing review checkpoints, provenance capture and conservative reuse rules to avoid penalties.
Platform impact and alignment with Microsoft Responsible AI
MSN clarifies that selection and ranking of content will not differ based solely on whether content is AIAC or human-generated, provided the content meets MSN's quality bar. This means compliant AI-assisted content can compete equally in distribution, assuming quality and editorial standards are met.
The policy explicitly maps to Microsoft AI principles and the Responsible AI Standard: accountability, transparency, human oversight and disclosure. That alignment signals MSN's intent to implement AI governance consistent with enterprise-grade responsible-AI practices rather than ad‑hoc labeling alone.
Coupling editorial rules with provenance technologies (like Content Credentials) and partner-level tagging creates a layered approach: policy, contractual guarantees, metadata, and technical provenance together reduce ambiguity about origin and human oversight.
Practical steps partners should take now
First, update contracts and onboarding documents to include the contractual guarantee that no unreviewed AIGC will be ingested. Legal and partner teams should align commercial terms with operational controls so obligations are enforceable and auditable.
Second, define and document "material human intervention" for your workflows: specify what constitutes substantive editing, approval gates, or editorial tasks that convert machine output into AIAC. Train editorial staff and create checklists to ensure consistent practices across teams and modalities.
Third, implement metadata capture and prepare tagging capabilities in your feed pipeline. Even before tagging becomes mandatory, capturing creation, revision and review metadata, and integrating Content Credentials for media, will make the eventual transition easier and reduce compliance risk.
MSN mandates AI disclosure for partners signals a clear industry direction: transparency, human oversight, and provenance are becoming standard requirements for platform distribution. For partners, compliance is a mix of contractual commitments, editorial workflows, metadata, and technical provenance systems.
Publishers and tech partners should treat this policy as an opportunity to build trust with readers while aligning to Microsoft’s Responsible AI principles. Taking the recommended steps now, contract updates, review processes, tagging readiness and provenance capture, will help organizations meet MSN's requirements and maintain placement and reach on the platform.
