Starting January 1, 2027, if the smiling spokesperson in a California ad was generated by AI, the ad has to say so. Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1050 on September 16, which makes California the second state after New York to require advertisers to disclose when a video or audio ad uses a synthetic, AI-generated performer. He signed it at the Los Angeles headquarters of SAG-AFTRA, the actors' union that sponsored the bill.
"Californians deserve to know when the person selling them something isn't a person at all," Newsom said in a statement announcing the signing. He described the law as part of California's effort to put "commonsense guardrails in place to protect consumers, performers, and promote stronger transparency."
What the law requires
SB 1050, written by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento), adds a new article to California's Business and Professions Code. It defines a "synthetic performer" as a digital figure, voice, or representation created in whole or in part with generative AI that gives the realistic impression of a human performer who is not an identifiable real person. AI replicas of real people fall under the state's existing right-of-publicity law.
The disclosure rule applies only when the synthetic performer appears "prominently." The statute defines that in three ways: the performer is in the foreground demonstrating or illustrating the product or service, the performer delivers the on- or off-camera narration or commercial message, or the performer illustrates or reacts to that narration. When the rule applies, the ad must carry a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure worded substantially like "this performance features a synthetic performer" or "no human performer is depicted." The statute says the disclosure must be "difficult to miss" and presented so that a reasonable consumer would notice, read, and understand it.
The law exempts ads for expressive works such as films, TV shows, streaming content, documentaries, and video games, as long as the synthetic performer appears in the ad the same way it appears in the work itself. AI used only for translation is also exempt.
Enforcement is where California goes further than New York. A violation counts as a violation of the state's false advertising law, Section 17500, and can be enforced under the Unfair Competition Law, which lets private plaintiffs sue in addition to state officials. The law also bars continued use of an ad found to be in violation. Once a court issues such an order, the "advertising medium" that carried the ad, whether a broadcaster, streamer, online platform, or ad network, has to stop distributing it as soon as that is commercially reasonable and technically feasible.
"This bill provides important protections for the creative economy, who are the living heartbeat of California," Ashby said. "The bill requires that synthetic figures be labeled as such, thus protecting consumers from false advertising and disallowing AI to replace real people."
SAG-AFTRA said it helped write the bill. "SAG-AFTRA was proud to help craft the language of the bill, which gives consumers greater transparency by making clear when they are seeing synthetics rather than human performers," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the union's national executive director and chief negotiator. He called the law "an important step in the broader effort to protect consumers from deceptive AI practices, and to ensure that AI technology isn't used at the expense of human creativity and consent."
Industry pushback
The major advertising trade groups lobbied against the bill. In a September 4 letter asking Newsom to veto it, the Association of National Advertisers, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation, and the Digital Advertising Alliance argued that "rather than targeting deceptive conduct, the bill establishes an overbroad mandatory labeling regime, exposes businesses to opportunistic litigation, and places severe burdens on ordinary commercial speech." They objected that labels are required even when nothing material is misleading.
Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman told MediaPost that the provision forcing online publishers to pull ads a court has found noncompliant may conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "In the abstract, not knowing the situation of any individual publisher, it looks like a 230 violation," he said.
Why It Matters
California and New York together cover a large share of the U.S. ad market, so their rules are likely to become the national standard in practice. New York's law, S.8420-A, which amended General Business Law Section 396-b, was signed in December 2025 and took effect June 9, 2026. It carries fixed civil penalties of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each one after that. The two laws cover different ground. New York's is broader in some ways: it covers performers created or modified by any software algorithm and applies whether or not the performer is prominent. California's is broader in others: it covers audio-only ads, prescribes the disclosure wording, and does not require the advertiser to know a synthetic performer was used.
Reed Smith counsel Julia Solomon Ensor wrote that the private right of action makes "the potential exposure for noncompliance materially higher" in California. She recommended that brands adopt California's statutory wording as a single national disclosure.
The laws also respond to something that already exists. Tilly Norwood, a fully AI-generated "actress" introduced in 2025, built a social media following, drew talent-agency interest, and appeared in ads and videos, which prompted strong objections from SAG-AFTRA and working actors. SB 1050 doesn't ban performers like Norwood. It makes sure viewers are told when they are watching one.
What to Watch
Companies have a little over three months to audit their creative pipelines before January 1. The open questions are how the law will apply to social media ads and to advertisers outside California, since it is triggered by any ad disseminated "in this state." Other things to watch are whether plaintiffs' firms file early UCL suits, whether a platform challenges the takedown provision under Section 230, and whether other states copy the California model or New York's before a federal standard emerges.
“Californians deserve to know when the person selling them something isn't a person at all.”— Gavin Newsom, Governor of California