Key Takeaways
- California’s SB 1050, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 16, mandates a clear and conspicuous disclosure whenever an advertisement “prominently” features a synthetic performer created with generative AI.
- The law defines a synthetic performer as a digital figure, voice, or likeness generated wholly or partly by AI that realistically imitates a human performer who is not identifiable as any specific natural person.
- “Prominently” means the synthetic performer appears in the foreground, demonstrates or illustrates the product/service, or provides/voices the on‑ or off‑camera narration or commercial message.
- Violations are treated as breaches of California’s false‑advertising statutes; the law takes effect January 1, 2027.
- New York already has a similar disclosure rule (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396‑b), while Hawaii’s statute targets the unauthorized use of realistic digital imitations of identifiable individuals, focusing on consent and harm prevention rather than disclosure.
- Marketers using generative AI must evaluate whether their ads trigger these state‑specific obligations and align with broader consumer‑protection frameworks such as the FTC Act.
Overview of California SB 1050
On September 16, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1050, a bill that adds a disclosure requirement for advertisements that use AI‑generated “synthetic performers.” The legislation is part of a broader package of AI‑related measures the governor approved this year, as noted in the firm’s prior blog post. SB 1050 seeks to increase transparency in marketing by ensuring consumers know when they are viewing or hearing a digitally created performer rather than a real human.
Definition of Synthetic Performer
The law defines a “synthetic performer” as “a digital figure, voice, or representation created, in whole or in part, using generative artificial intelligence that creates the realistic impression of the audio, audiovisual, or visual performance of a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural person.” This wording captures a wide range of AI‑generated content—from computer‑generated avatars delivering product pitches to AI‑synthesized voiceovers mimicking a spokesperson—provided the resulting likeness does not correspond to a specific, identifiable individual.
Disclosure Requirements and Prominence Standard
SB 1050 prohibits “a person from creating and causing to be published in an advertising medium an advertisement that ‘prominently’ includes a ‘synthetic performer,’ unless the advertisement contains a clear and conspicuous disclosure.” The statute clarifies that “prominently” means the synthetic performer appears in the foreground and is either demonstrating or illustrating the product or service, or providing or voicing, or illustrating or reacting to, the on‑ or off‑camera narration or commercial message. In practice, this targets ads where the AI‑generated figure is central to the persuasive message, rather than a background element.
Effective Date and Enforcement
The disclosure obligation will not take effect immediately; SB 1050 is slated to enter into force on January 1, 2027. Until then, businesses have a grace period to audit existing campaigns, adjust creative workflows, and implement compliance mechanisms. Violations of the disclosure rule will be treated as violations of California’s false‑advertising laws, exposing offenders to potential civil penalties, injunctive relief, and damages under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL).
Comparison to New York Law
California’s approach mirrors New York’s synthetic performer disclosure statute, codified at N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396‑b, which likewise requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure when a synthetic performer is used in an advertisement. Both statutes share the core premise that consumers deserve to know when they are encountering AI‑generated likenesses. However, California’s law adds the “prominently” qualifier, narrowing the scope to cases where the synthetic performer plays a substantive role in the ad, whereas New York’s rule applies more broadly to any use of a synthetic performer in advertising.
Hawaii’s Distinct Approach
Unlike California’s disclosure‑centric model, Hawaii enacted a statute that focuses on the unauthorized use of realistic digital imitations of identifiable individuals. The Hawaii law “prohibits a person from knowingly publishing a realistic digital imitation of an identifiable individual without that individual’s consent when the imitation is used in connection with advertising, causes harm, or is used to facilitate fraud, defamation, harassment, or other unlawful conduct.” This shift from disclosure to consent‑based prohibition reflects concerns about deepfakes and the potential for reputational harm when a real person’s likeness is appropriated without permission.
Implications for Advertisers
For marketers leveraging generative AI in creative assets, the patchwork of state laws necessitates a careful, jurisdiction‑specific analysis. Advertisers must determine whether any AI‑generated figure in an ad meets the “synthetic performer” definition and whether it appears “prominently” enough to trigger California’s disclosure duty. Simultaneously, they must assess whether the depiction involves an identifiable person, which could implicate Hawaii’s consent rule or New York’s disclosure requirement. Failure to comply could result not only in state‑level penalties but also in heightened scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under its guidance on deceptive advertising.
Recommendations for Compliance
To navigate this evolving landscape, companies should: (1) maintain an inventory of all AI‑generated elements used in advertising; (2) apply a clear and conspicuous disclaimer—such as “AI‑generated performer” or “Virtual spokesperson”—whenever a synthetic performer is foregrounded; (3) secure explicit consent from any real individual whose likeness is digitally replicated; (4) keep abreast of updates to state statutes and federal guidance; and (5) consider implementing internal review checklists that flag AI content before publication.
Future Outlook and Updates
The legislative momentum around AI transparency shows no sign of slowing. As more states observe the consumer‑protection gaps exposed by deepfake technology, additional disclosure or consent‑based laws are likely to emerge. Industry groups may push for harmonized standards to reduce compliance burdens, while advocacy organizations may advocate for stricter bans on non‑consensual deepfakes. Staying informed through reliable legal updates—such as the firm’s promised follow‑up posts—will be essential for advertisers seeking to harness AI’s creative potential without running afoul of the law.
Conclusion
California’s SB 1050 represents a significant step toward greater transparency in AI‑driven marketing, joining New York’s existing disclosure rule and contrasting with Hawaii’s consent‑focused prohibition. By defining synthetic performers, establishing a prominence threshold, and tying non‑compliance to false‑advertising statutes, the law creates a clear compliance pathway for advertisers. As the January 1, 2027 effective date approaches, businesses that proactively assess their AI usage, implement appropriate disclosures, and secure necessary consents will be best positioned to avoid legal pitfalls while continuing to innovate in the rapidly evolving advertising landscape.
New AI Transparency Requirements Enacted For Advertisers And Deployers