California now requires AI actor disclosures in ads
California is now the second state to require AI actor disclosures in advertising. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1050, which mandates clear and conspicuous disclosure whenever an advertisement prominently features a synthetic AI performer.
What Counts as a Synthetic Performer
The law defines a synthetic performer as a digital figure, voice, or representation created in whole or in part using generative AI that creates the realistic impression of a human performance but is not recognizable as an identifiable real person. This focuses the law on entirely fabricated AI performers, not on AI tools used to enhance or alter a real person’s image or voice.
Not every AI-generated appearance triggers disclosure. The performer must be featured prominently, meaning they are in the foreground demonstrating the product, providing on- or off-camera narration, or visibly reacting to that narration.
What the Disclosure Must Say
California goes further than New York on specifics. The required language must be substantially similar to either “this performance features a synthetic performer” or “no human performer is depicted.” It must be clear, conspicuous, and presented in a way a reasonable consumer would notice and understand in context.
Exemptions Worth Noting
- Advertisements for expressive works (films, TV, streaming, video games) where the synthetic performer appears consistently across both the ad and the underlying work.
- Generative AI used solely for language translation of a human performer.
- Generative AI used only for accessibility features.
How California Differs from New York and Hawaii
New York requires a conspicuous disclosure but gives advertisers little guidance on the exact language. California’s sample phrases could create a compliance gap: an advertiser using California’s “no human performer is depicted” language might not satisfy New York’s requirement for an affirmative statement that “a synthetic performer is in such advertisement.”
Hawaii takes a different approach entirely. Its Act 247 does not require disclosure. Instead, it prohibits using an AI-generated digital imitation of an identifiable individual without express written consent, where that imitation is used in an ad, causes harm, or is used to commit fraud, defamation, or harassment. Hawaii targets real people being cloned. California targets fictional AI performers.
The Operator Takeaway
If you run ads in California, New York, or Hawaii and use AI-generated performers, you now have three overlapping but distinct compliance requirements. A single disclosure approach may not satisfy all three jurisdictions. Companies running national campaigns should audit which AI technologies appear in their creative, assign ownership of disclosure language in contracts with agencies and AI vendors, and build a review step into the production process before any ad goes live.
Violations of California’s disclosure requirement constitute violations of the state’s False Advertising Law and may be enforced under the Unfair Competition Law. Ad platforms served with a court order finding a violation must stop disseminating the flagged advertisement as soon as commercially reasonable and technically feasible.
I’m founder of BizStack at Cagri Sarigoz LLC and a passionate advocate for entrepreneurs.
With over 14 years in tech, marketing, and AI, including my role as Head of SEO at CitizenShipper and co-founder of TaleBot at Intale AI, I’m dedicated to sharing genuine, useful product insights and tips.
At BizStack, I aim to cut through the digital noise to provide clear, actionable advice.
And more than all else, I’m a father to a (always) little girl and a husband.
Contact me at [email protected] for assistance.
