By: Andrew Jablon, Esq. and Aliza Malouf, Esq.
Earlier this year, New York became the first state to require disclosures for certain advertisements featuring AI-generated “synthetic performers.” California, not one to let New York have all the fun, may soon follow suit. On August 31, 2026, the final day of its 2026 session, the California Legislature passed SB 1050, a measure that would impose its own disclosure requirements for advertisements prominently featuring synthetic performers. Strongly supported by SAG-AFTRA, the bill heads to Governor Newsom as e-commerce companies increasingly turn to generative AI for marketing content.
SB 1050 would add a new article to the Business and Professions Code targeting “synthetic performers,” defined 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” (that is, a realistic but nonexistent likeness, not a stylized android).
California will require disclosure when a synthetic performer is featured “prominently,” meaning it appears in the foreground while demonstrating or illustrating a product or service, or provides on- or off-camera narration or the commercial message itself. Acceptable disclosure language includes statements such as “this performance features a synthetic performer” or “no human performer is depicted.” Failure to disclose exposes advertisers to claims under California’s False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500) and Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).
While both New York’s law and SB 1050 seek to increase transparency around AI-generated commercial content, they take notably different approaches. New York generally requires a conspicuous disclosure whenever an advertiser with actual knowledge uses a synthetic performer in an advertisement, and enforces this requirement through statutory civil penalties. By contrast, California’s bill is limited to the “prominent” use of synthetic performers. Still, violations may give rise to claims under California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, potentially creating a broader and more familiar enforcement framework for private litigants. New York’s law also includes several express exemptions, including for audio-only advertisements and certain advertisements for expressive works, while California’s proposed law expressly encompasses AI-generated voices. As a result, companies cannot assume that compliance in one state will satisfy the requirements of the other.
Businesses using AI in their marketing should act now by building a searchable inventory of digital assets that may require disclosure and updating vendor agreements, including influencer agreements, to address synthetic content through appropriate representations, warranties, and indemnities. Those efforts are likely to pay dividends beyond California and New York. As generative AI becomes an increasingly common tool for creating advertising and marketing content, businesses should expect more states to adopt their own transparency and disclosure requirements. And if New York and California are any indication, companies should not assume these laws will develop uniformly. Businesses using AI-generated content should therefore monitor developments closely and take a state-specific approach to compliance rather than assuming that compliance in one jurisdiction will satisfy another.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
