California AB 2025: Disclosing Altered Rental Listing Photos

California AB 2025: Rental Listings Would Have to Disclose Digitally Altered Photos From January 1, 2027

California AB 2025 would require anyone advertising a rental to disclose when a listing image was digitally altered and, in most cases, to supply the unaltered original. The Governor's Office lists the bill as signed on September 27, 2026. The requirement would apply from January 1, 2027.

Information last verified on September 28, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The Governor's Office "Legislative update 9.27.2026" page, dated September 27, 2026, states "Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that he has signed the following bills" and lists "AB 2025 by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz)". The Legislature's own record for AB 2025, read on September 28, 2026, still showed status "Active Bill - Enrolled", location "Governor", and a newest action of "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m." dated 08/31/26, with no approval entry. No chapter number had been assigned on the action log when we read it on September 28, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: These requirements would reach California rental advertising only. Read them alongside our California landlord-tenant guide, and see how other states treat rental advertising in our state-by-state landlord-tenant hub. We have not verified a comparable altered-listing-image disclosure statute in any other state; that is the limit of what we checked, not a claim that none exists.

What Happened

AB 2025 is titled "An act to amend Section 10140.8 of the Business and Professions Code, and to add Section 1940.11 to the Civil Code, relating to tenancy." The Legislature's bill status page lists the lead author as Pellerin (A), with no principal coauthors or coauthors shown (bill status page, read September 28, 2026). The Governor's Office identifies her as Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

The record is currently split. The Governor's Office legislative update dated September 27, 2026 lists AB 2025 among bills the Governor announced he has signed, while the Legislature's action log for the same bill, read the following day, ended at "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m." on 08/31/26. There is no "Approved by the Governor" row, no "Chaptered" row and no chapter number anywhere on that log, so we are not assigning one. Chaptering entries can lag the Governor's own announcement, so the two records are not necessarily in conflict, and we will update this page when the log catches up.

The bill moved with near-unanimous support. The Assembly passed it on 05/14/26, "Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0.)" The Senate passed an amended version on 08/24/26, "Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 37. Noes 1.)" The Assembly concurred on 08/25/26, "Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.)" (bill history, read September 28, 2026). The version of the text we read is labeled Enrolled August 27, 2026, and everything quoted below comes from it.

What the Disclosure Rule Would Require

The core of the bill is new Civil Code Section 1940.11. Its operative command reads: "A person who includes a digitally altered image in an advertisement or other promotional material for rental of real property shall include in the advertisement or promotional material a disclosure that the image has been altered. The disclosure shall be reasonably conspicuous and located on or adjacent to the image." (Civil Code 1940.11(b)(1).)

Note who that reaches. The subject is "[a] person," not a landlord or a licensee specifically, so the duty follows the act of advertising rather than a particular license status. Subdivision (c) then adds a separate consequence for people who do hold a real estate license.

The definition decides how much work the statute actually does, so here it is in full. Section 1940.11(a)(2) provides:

"(A) 'Digitally altered image' means an image that meets either of the following conditions: (i) It has been fully generated through artificial intelligence software by or at the direction of a person. (ii) It was an existing image that has been altered by or at the direction of a person through the use of photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements in the image, including, but not limited to, fixtures, furniture, appliances, flooring, walls, paint color, hardscape, landscape, facade, floor plans, and elements outside of, or visible from, the property, including, but not limited to, streetlights, utility poles, views through windows, and neighboring properties. (B) 'Digitally altered image' does not include an image where only lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, angle, straightening, cropping, exposure, or other common photo editing adjustments are made that do not change the representation of the real property."

Two things follow from that language. The line is drawn at whether the edit changes what the property is represented to be, not at whether software was used; ordinary color correction and cropping sit outside the definition by name. And a fully synthetic image is covered by limb (i) even though nothing was "altered" in the ordinary sense.

The second duty is the original image. Section 1940.11(b)(2)(A) requires the advertisement to "include the unaltered version of the images from which the digitally altered images were created in the posting," and allows compliance "by including a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible internet website that includes, and clearly identifies, the original, unaltered image." If that route is used, the disclosure "shall include language indicating the unaltered images can be accessed via the link, URL, or QR code."

That duty has a carve-out. Subdivision (b)(2)(B) states that subparagraph (A) "does not apply to an image, architectural rendering, or artistic rendering that was not originally created through the use of a capture device." "Capture device" borrows its meaning from Business and Professions Code Section 22757.1, which defines it as a device that can record photographs, audio, or video content, including still and video cameras, camera phones, and voice recorders. A rendering that never started as a photograph therefore has no unaltered original to publish, but the disclosure in subdivision (b)(1) still applies to it.

The bill's other change is on the sales side. AB 2025 amends Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8, the existing sales-listing disclosure statute added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 497 (AB 723) and effective January 1, 2026, by adding subdivision (c): "This section does not apply to an advertisement or other promotional material for a leasehold exceeding one year's duration." The Legislative Counsel's Digest explains why: the sales statute's definition of "sell," "sale," or "sold" already swept in "a leasehold exceeding one year's duration." The currently codified version of Section 10140.8 ends at subdivision (b)(2) and has no subdivision (c).

How It Would Be Enforced

Section 1940.11 provides one enforcement hook of its own. Subdivision (c) states that "[a] person licensed pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code who violates this section shall be deemed to have violated that person's licensing law." That routes a licensee's violation into the Real Estate Law, which the Legislative Counsel's Digest describes as the scheme that "generally provides for the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons."

The Digest also states that "[a] willful violation of the Real Estate Law is a crime," and Section 3 of the bill recites that the only local costs it creates arise "because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction." So there is a criminal dimension, but it runs through the Real Estate Law and reaches licensees, not every advertiser.

The enrolled text sets no fine, no statutory damages figure, and no administrative penalty schedule inside Section 1940.11, and it does not create a private right of action. Nothing in the section authorizes a renter or applicant to sue for a violation of it. What it does preserve is existing advertising law: subdivision (d) provides that "[t]his section does not alter or abridge any law pertaining to false or misleading advertising." That is a savings clause, not a new cause of action.

When It Takes Effect

January 1, 2027, on the record as it stands. Here is the derivation rather than an assertion.

The enrolled text contains three sections: the amendment to Business and Professions Code 10140.8, the addition of Civil Code 1940.11, and the no-reimbursement recital. There is no urgency clause, no election or appropriation provision, and no delayed or special operative date anywhere in the bill. That matters because California Constitution article IV, section 8(c) makes immediate effect the exception: statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes take effect immediately on enactment. AB 2025 is none of those.

The default rule in section 8(c) is that "a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute." Taking September 27, 2026 as the date of enactment the Governor's Office describes, the 90-day period runs into late December 2026, and the January 1 that next follows it is January 1, 2027.

One caveat stays explicit: that date rests on the Governor's Office signing record, because the Legislature's action log showed no approval entry when we read it.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The interesting move in AB 2025 is not that it addresses AI images. It is where the definition draws its line. Section 1940.11(a)(2)(B) excludes lighting, white balance, color correction, cropping, and exposure by name, so long as they "do not change the representation of the real property," while (a)(2)(A)(ii) catches edits that "add, remove, or change elements" and then lists paint color, flooring, landscape, and "views through windows." The statute is aimed at the representation, not the tooling. That matters in rental advertising, where every listing photo has been processed somehow, and a rule reaching only AI tools would miss ordinary object removal in photo editors, which limb (ii) expressly covers.

This is an incremental step in California rather than a standing start. The sales-side duty in Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8 has been codified since January 1, 2026 under AB 723, and AB 2025 extends a parallel duty to the rental side while pulling long leaseholds out of the sales provision.

One drafting choice is worth flagging without predicting how it plays out. The rental definition adds a limb the sales definition does not have: a fully AI-generated image. The sales definition in Section 10140.8(b)(1) is written around an image "that has been altered." Either way, the rental provision on its face reaches synthetic images more clearly than the sales provision it sits beside. For broader California context, see our guides to California AI laws and California deepfake and synthetic media laws.

Finally, an observation about the enforcement design rather than a prediction about its strength. The only consequence written into Section 1940.11 attaches to licensees through the Real Estate Law, while the disclosure duty itself reaches "[a] person." A small owner advertising a unit directly is inside the duty and outside subdivision (c). What happens in that gap depends on other law, which subdivision (d) leaves untouched.

How This Affects You

This section is general information about what the statute says. It is not an assessment of anyone's situation.

If you rent in California, nothing about a listing you see today changes. If the statute takes effect January 1, 2027, listings covered by it would carry a conspicuous note on or next to an altered image, plus either the unaltered photo or a link, URL, or QR code to it (Civil Code 1940.11(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A)). A listing showing an architectural or artistic rendering that never began as a photograph would carry the disclosure without a matching original (Civil Code 1940.11(b)(2)(B)). Before and after the effective date, the practical safeguard is the same one it always was: see the unit.

If you advertise California rental property, the text raises three questions: which of your images fall inside the two-limb definition in Section 1940.11(a)(2)(A), which fall inside the routine-adjustment exclusion in (a)(2)(B), and whether you can produce the unaltered originals that (b)(2)(A) would require. We are not drafting disclosure wording here, and the statute sets none; it specifies only that the disclosure be "reasonably conspicuous and located on or adjacent to the image." Licensees should note the added exposure in subdivision (c). Anyone applying this to a specific advertising practice should get advice from a California attorney. Our AI law hub tracks this kind of change as it lands.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes California AB 2025, new Civil Code Section 1940.11, and amended Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8 as the enrolled text and official records read on September 28, 2026. Legislative records change, and the chaptering record for this bill was incomplete when we checked. For advice about a specific rental listing, advertising practice, or license, consult a California attorney.

Related articles

• California landlord-tenant laws
• Landlord-tenant laws by state
• California AI laws
• California deepfake laws
• AI laws by state

Last updated: 2026-09-28. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-28.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does California's altered rental photo disclosure rule start?

On the record as of September 28, 2026, it would apply from January 1, 2027. The Governor's Office lists AB 2025 as signed on September 27, 2026, the bill contains no urgency clause, and California Constitution article IV, section 8(c) provides that a statute enacted at a regular session takes effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment. It is a disclosure requirement, not a ban: nothing in the enrolled text prohibits using a digitally altered image in a rental listing.

What counts as a digitally altered image under the statute?

Civil Code 1940.11(a)(2)(A) covers two things: an image 'fully generated through artificial intelligence software by or at the direction of a person', and an existing image altered 'through the use of photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements in the image', with a list naming fixtures, furniture, appliances, flooring, walls, paint color, hardscape, landscape, facade, floor plans, and elements outside of or visible from the property such as streetlights, utility poles, views through windows, and neighboring properties. Subparagraph (B) excludes images where only lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, angle, straightening, cropping, exposure, or other common photo editing adjustments are made that 'do not change the representation of the real property'.

Would virtual staging have to be disclosed?

Adding furniture to a photograph adds an element to the image, and 'furniture' appears in the list in Civil Code 1940.11(a)(2)(A)(ii), so virtual staging falls inside the definition as written. The statute would require the disclosure, and under (b)(2)(A) the unaltered photograph the staged image was created from, which may be supplied through a link, URL, or QR code. We are describing the text, not advising on a particular listing.

Would a landlord have to publish the original photo?

Civil Code 1940.11(b)(2)(A) requires the unaltered version of the source images in the posting, and allows compliance through a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible website that includes and clearly identifies the original, unaltered image. Subdivision (b)(2)(B) exempts an image, architectural rendering, or artistic rendering 'that was not originally created through the use of a capture device', so a fully synthetic image needs the disclosure but has no original to publish.

Can a renter sue over an undisclosed altered listing photo?

The enrolled text of Civil Code 1940.11 does not create a private right of action, and we will not imply one. The only consequence written in is subdivision (c), under which a person licensed under Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code who violates the section is deemed to have violated their licensing law. Subdivision (d) adds that the section 'does not alter or abridge any law pertaining to false or misleading advertising', preserving existing remedies under other law rather than creating new ones.

Has the Governor signed AB 2025?

The two official records did not match when we checked. The Governor's Office legislative update dated September 27, 2026 lists AB 2025 among bills the Governor announced he has signed. The Legislature's action log, read on September 28, 2026, showed status 'Active Bill - Enrolled' with a newest action of 'Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.' on 08/31/26, no approval entry, and no chapter number. Chaptering entries can lag the announcement, so we report both and will update the page as the log changes.

Does AB 2025 change anything for property sales listings?

Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8 has required a similar disclosure for sales advertising since January 1, 2026, under Stats. 2025, Ch. 497 (AB 723). AB 2025 amends it by adding subdivision (c): 'This section does not apply to an advertisement or other promotional material for a leasehold exceeding one year's duration.' The Legislative Counsel's Digest explains that the sales statute's definition of sale already included a leasehold exceeding one year.

Does this apply outside California?

No. Civil Code 1940.11 and Business and Professions Code 10140.8 are California statutes and reach California advertising. We have not verified a comparable altered-listing-image disclosure statute in another state, which is a statement about the limits of what we checked rather than a claim that no other state has one.