Brand risk
It says it’s an assistant.
Then it asks why they signed up.
And then it listens. This page is about the words: the opening line, the questions after it, and the fixed answers for the moments a conversation should never be improvised.
Book a callUpdated
What it says is the exact wording the assistant uses on your registrants: the opening line in which it identifies itself as an assistant, the questions it asks after that, and the fixed responses it gives when a conversation goes somewhere it should not follow. Disclosure comes first, before anything is asked of anyone.
That is a settled product decision, not a switch in a settings panel. It is also the sentence on this whole site carrying the most legal weight, which is why the wording appears here only once it is the wording the system actually uses.
Does it tell people it’s an AI? What exactly does it say, word for word?
Yes, at the start, before it asks for anything — and that is not a per-client setting. What we can say is that concealment is the failure mode with a known cost, and the person who eats that is the operator whose name is on the webinar.
The convenient part is that the law is pointing the same way. California’s bot statute makes disclosure an explicit exemption from liability[1], federal rules already require an artificial-voice call to identify who is responsible at the beginning of the message[2], and the FCC has proposed requiring callers to disclose AI-generated voice at the beginning of each call[3]. Building the product around concealment means building it against all three.
| The assistant hides what it is | The assistant says what it is | |
|---|---|---|
| Bot-disclosure law | The exposure stays open | Disclosure is the named exemption in California's bot statute |
| Artificial-voice call rules | Identification at the start is required anyway | Already satisfied by the opening line |
| Where federal rulemaking is heading | Against you | With you — the FCC's proposal is disclosure at the start of the call |
| If it is ever noticed | You are the operator who ran a fake human at your own list | There is nothing to notice |
| Does the mechanism depend on it? | Yes — it needs the listener not to know | No — the registrant is persuading themselves, not the caller |
| What the recipient-side record says | Unmeasured | Unmeasured — no public report of receiving a disclosed AI call has been found |
That last row is the honest one, and it is worth more to you than a confident answer would be. Across three rounds of research into the communities where people complain about the calls they get, we found nobody describing a disclosed AI call at all — so “recipients don’t mind” is not a finding, it is a guess, and we are not going to sell you one.
The two things we will not tell you
What can the bot NOT say? Show me the guardrails.
A guardrail list is not a feature list. It is the set of moments where a script either has an answer already written down or it does not, and the five below are the ones buyers raise before they raise price.
The middle column is why each one gets asked. The right-hand column is the standard — what has to be true of any system touching your list, ours included.
| The moment | Why this one gets asked | What has to be true |
|---|---|---|
| They ask whether it is a bot | It is the moment a concealed system fails, in front of your audience | It says yes. The answer cannot change because the question was asked |
| A question the script does not cover | This is the brand-risk question in its literal form | It hands off. It does not guess, and it does not fill the silence |
| They say stop | An opt-out honoured on one channel and not the others is not an opt-out | Every channel stops for that person, not only the one they replied on |
| They ask about money, or whether it works | An automated system talking about your results is the thing you cannot take back | Money and results are a handoff, not an answer |
| They get angry | Everyone has met an automated system that would not let them out | The exchange ends and reaches a person, rather than retrying |
Ask any vendor for all five in writing. If one of them comes back as “the AI handles it”, that is not an answer, and the same test applies to us.
What does it do when it gets a question it can’t answer?
A hard fallback, never improvisation. This is the question the whole page exists to answer, because it is the literal shape of the deal-killer: what happens the first time your robot says something stupid to someone who was about to pay you eight thousand dollars.
The only acceptable behaviour is that the assistant stops, says a person will answer, and the question actually reaches that person. Which person, and when they are awake, belongs on the sequence page — a fallback with no named destination is a dead end with better manners.
What happens when someone asks “will this make me money?”
This is a different class of question from the others. It is not “can the assistant answer it”; it is whether anything automated should be answering it at all, because a claim about results made in your name is the one thing you cannot walk back.
The research reached a blunt answer and it is the one we use: the assistant confirms and schedules, humans sell. Handing the actual selling conversation to your own closers removes the largest legal exposure and the largest sales objection at the same time, which is why it is the default rather than an upgrade.
Can I approve every script before it goes out? Can I change one mid-campaign?
Script approval in writing, with change control, is a reasonable thing to insist on and it is cheap for us to meet. Treat the four steps below as the minimum bar rather than as a premium tier.
See every line, not a summary
The opening line with its disclosure clause, the questions asked after it, and the fixed responses for the five moments above. A description of a script is not a script, and a demo is not a script either.
Approve it in writing, and version it
Approval that lives in a chat thread is not change control. A change made mid-campaign should be a version you approved, not something you discover from a registrant.
Name where the fallback lands
When the assistant hands off, it has to hand off to someone specific. Get the name, not the department, and get the hours that name is actually reachable.
Hold a stop you can use yourself
Approval controls what gets said. A stop controls whether anything gets said at all, and it has to be usable without asking permission from the vendor.
Every one of those four is a contract question rather than a technology question, which is the point: the parts of this that protect your brand are written down, not demonstrated.
Where’s the kill switch and how fast is it?
The important half of that question is where, not how fast. A kill switch you have to email for is not a kill switch, and one that only stops new registrants entering the sequence is a tap, not a valve.
Three things make it real:
- It is on your side. You use it without asking us and without waiting for us.
- It stops sending. Including whatever is already queued, not only whatever has not started.
- You saw it work. In the same session where you approved the script, on your own account, before you signed anything.
There is deliberately no number of seconds published next to it. No timing claim on a website is auditable by the person reading the website, and the correct response to a vendor who publishes one is to ask how you would ever check it. Ask to watch it instead.
Frequently asked questions
It identifies itself as an assistant at the start, before it asks anything, and that is not a per-client setting. The word-for-word text appears on this page once the wording is signed off: it carries real weight under California's bot statute, FTC deception rules and the FCC's proposed AI-disclosure rule, so it is not a sentence a marketing page gets to draft.
It says yes. An answer that only appears when it is challenged is concealment with a fallback, not disclosure.
It hands off rather than improvising: it stops, says a person will answer, and the question reaches a named person. A fallback without a named destination is not a fallback.
Yes, and insist on it with any vendor: the full script in writing before anything sends, and changes versioned, so a mid-campaign edit is something you approved rather than something you hear about from a registrant.
The assistant does not answer it. It confirms and schedules; the selling conversation goes to your closers. That removes the largest legal exposure and the largest brand risk in one move, which is why it is the default rather than an upgrade.
On your side, usable without asking us, and it stops sending rather than only stopping new entries. No response-time figure is published for it, because a timing number on a website cannot be audited by the person reading the website. Ask to watch it work in the session where you approve the script.
Nobody knows, and anyone who tells you otherwise is guessing: three rounds of research into recipient-side communities turned up no public report of anyone receiving a disclosed AI call at all. The decision rests on what buyers demanded and on the legal exposure disclosure removes, not on that question.
The other half of the brand-risk question is not what the assistant says but how often it says anything, which is on the sequence. If you want the wording and the guardrails walked through line by line against your own offer, book a call, or start with the split-list pilot and make the whole argument testable on your own registrants.
Founder & Operator, CallHush
Founder and operator of CallHush. The offer is one sentence: you run a webinar, and we increase your show-up rate and your post-webinar sales with an AI voice and SMS system. CallHush has no closed clients yet — the first engagement is a pilot run as a split of the client’s own registrant list, and nothing on this site is presented as a client result.
View all articles