California SB 1050: Synthetic Performer Ad Disclosure Law

California enacted a new advertising disclosure law for AI-generated performers on September 16, 2026. SB 1050 requires a clear disclosure whenever an ad prominently features a synthetic performer, effective January 1, 2027.

Information last verified on September 18, 2026.

Status: Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 16, 2026, as Chapter 246, Statutes of 2026. The bill carries no urgency clause, so it is not yet operative; it takes effect January 1, 2027, under the standard rule for regular-session statutes in the California Constitution.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California state law only, specifically new Business and Professions Code Section 17610 as added by SB 1050. It does not address federal advertising law, FTC guidance on AI endorsements, or any other state's synthetic-performer or deepfake disclosure statute.

What Happened

On September 16, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1050, authored by Senator Angelique Ashby, into law. The leginfo bill-text page for SB 1050 states: "Approved by Governor September 16, 2026. Filed with Secretary of State September 16, 2026." The bill was chaptered the same day as Chapter 246, Statutes of 2026.

SB 1050 adds a new Article 10, beginning with Section 17610, to Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, which is the state's existing false-advertising chapter. The Legislative Counsel's Digest frames the bill as an addition to that existing false-advertising and unfair-competition framework, not a standalone statute: "This bill would make it an unlawful advertising practice for a person to create and cause to be published in an advertising medium an advertisement that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the advertisement includes a synthetic performer."

The bill's own findings, in Section 1, state the Legislature's reasoning: "Consumers have a substantial interest in knowing when an advertisement uses a synthetic performer in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as a human performance," and that the Legislature intends the required disclosure to be "a purely factual commercial disclosure consistent with constitutional protections for commercial speech," a phrase that signals the drafters built the law to survive a commercial-speech First Amendment challenge.

SB 1050 passed by majority vote and carries no urgency clause, no fiscal appropriation, and a "Local Program: YES" designation tied to the bill's incidental expansion of misdemeanor liability under Section 17500. Because it took the ordinary path through the 2025-2026 regular session, it follows the ordinary effective-date rule rather than taking effect immediately on signature.

What the Law Actually Says

New Section 17610(a) defines several terms that do the real work of the statute:

An advertisement is "any audio, video, or audiovisual message, statement, audiovisual recording, digital communication, or other representation disseminated in any manner or by any means, including through online platforms," that is intended or reasonably expected to induce a purchase.

An advertising medium covers broadcast stations, cable operators, multichannel video programming distributors, online platforms, streaming services, digital advertising networks, publishers, "or other person or entity that distributes, displays, transmits, or makes available" an audio or audiovisual ad to California consumers. The definition carves out any entity that is "not capable of removing, disabling access to, or ceasing further dissemination of" an ad, which keeps the duty in subdivision (e) tied to entities that actually control distribution.

A clear and conspicuous disclosure must be "difficult to miss, easily understandable, and presented in a manner that a reasonable consumer would notice, read, and comprehend," accounting for the medium, format, and context.

Prominently is defined by three specific circumstances: the synthetic performer is in the foreground demonstrating or illustrating the product or service; providing or voicing the on- or off-camera narration; or illustrating or reacting to that narration.

A synthetic performer is "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 last clause matters: the definition is written around a wholly synthetic figure, not an AI-manipulated depiction of a real, identifiable person.

Subdivision (b) states the core duty: it is unlawful for any person to create and cause to be published in an advertising medium an advertisement that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the ad includes one.

Subdivision (c) sets the required wording: the disclosure "shall use wording substantially similar to 'this performance features a synthetic performer' or 'no human performer is depicted.'"

Subdivision (d) lists five limits on how the section can be read. The law does not restrict or prohibit creating, distributing, or exhibiting synthetic content generally; it does not regulate the expressive or informational content of an ad beyond requiring the factual disclosure; and it does not affect other rights or remedies under Sections 17200 or 17500 or any other deceptive-practices law. Two carve-outs are worth flagging for anyone drafting ad creative: subdivision (d)(4) exempts advertisements for "expressive works, including, but not limited to, motion pictures, television programs, streaming content, documentaries, video games, or other similar audio or audiovisual works," as long as the synthetic performer's use in the ad matches its use in the underlying work (a movie trailer that uses the same synthetic character the film uses does not separately trigger the disclosure duty). Subdivision (d)(5) exempts an ad where the only generative-AI use is language translation of a human performer, or other accessibility features.

Subdivision (e) sets a separate, narrower duty for advertising mediums. A medium may not transmit, distribute, display, air, or otherwise make available an ad containing a synthetic performer once two conditions are both met: a court of competent jurisdiction has issued an order finding the ad violates the chapter, or enjoining the creator from publishing it (the text specifically references an injunction under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527), and the medium has been served with that order along with information reasonably sufficient to identify the ad. Once served, the medium must, as soon as commercially reasonable and technically feasible, remove or disable the ad in California and stop accepting payment for further distribution of it. There is no independent screening or pre-clearance obligation; the duty is triggered by service of a court order, not by a medium's own judgment about whether an ad complies.

Subdivision (f) states the enforcement mechanism directly: "A violation of this section constitutes a violation of Section 17500 and may be enforced pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2." Section 17500 is California's general false-advertising statute; a violation of it is a misdemeanor. Chapter 5, the Unfair Competition Law beginning at Section 17200, is enforced under Section 17204, which authorizes actions by the Attorney General, a district attorney, certain city attorneys and county counsel in specified cities and counties, or by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. SB 1050 does not create a new, separate cause of action; it routes violations into that existing false-advertising and UCL enforcement structure.

Subdivision (g) is a standard severability clause: if any part of Section 17610 is held invalid, the rest remains in force.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

SB 1050 is narrower than the "AI ad disclosure law" framing suggests, and the narrowness is deliberate. The statute only reaches a specific category: a performer that is entirely or partly generative-AI-created and that is not recognizable as any identifiable real person. An advertisement that uses an AI-manipulated likeness of a real, identifiable actor or spokesperson, the more contested category of synthetic media that raises right-of-publicity and voice-cloning concerns, is not what this particular definition targets. California already has separate statutes addressing digital replicas of real performers; SB 1050 fills the adjacent gap of wholly fabricated performers who look and sound human but correspond to no actual person.

The Legislature's own findings lean on that narrowness for constitutional cover. By framing the requirement as "a purely factual commercial disclosure," the bill positions itself under the more permissive standard courts apply to compelled commercial speech, rather than the stricter scrutiny that applies to content-based restrictions on expressive speech. Subdivision (d)(2), which says the law does not "regulate the expressive or informational content of an advertisement, except to require the factual disclosure," reads as the drafters building a record for exactly that defense if the statute is challenged.

The enforcement design also tells you who is expected to carry the weight of compliance. The creation-and-publication duty in subdivision (b) falls on "any person" who creates and causes an ad to be published, which reaches advertisers, agencies, and brands, not just platforms. The advertising-medium duty in subdivision (e) is comparatively light: a platform or broadcaster faces no obligation until a court has already ruled and served it with an order. That structure avoids putting broadcasters and ad networks in the position of prejudging every incoming ad for AI content, but it also means the practical deterrent for advertisers is downstream litigation risk under the UCL and Section 17500, including potential suits by competitors or by a consumer who lost money or property, rather than upfront platform-level screening.

One open question the statute does not resolve: it defines "prominently" by three fact-specific circumstances (foreground and demonstrating the product, voicing narration, or reacting to narration) rather than a bright-line test like screen time or dialogue count. Advertisers running ads with brief, background, or stylized use of a synthetic figure will need to make a judgment call about whether that use crosses into any of the three prominence categories, and reasonable people can disagree at the margins.

How This Affects You

If your business creates or places advertising that will run in California, and that advertising uses a generative-AI-created figure or voice that is not modeled on a real, identifiable person, plan for a disclosure using wording substantially similar to the statute's model language before January 1, 2027. Marketing, legal, and compliance teams reviewing ad creative for California distribution should build a review step for this category now rather than after the operative date. This is general information about a newly enacted statute, not legal advice for a specific ad campaign; a business with ads that may fall near the statute's edges, such as ads using AI-altered depictions of real performers, translated or dubbed ads, or ads tied to an expressive work, should get its own legal review before the effective date. For the wider California AI-regulation landscape this statute sits inside, see California's broader framework for AI-related laws. For how the state treats AI content built from a real person's face or voice, which is a distinct legal category from SB 1050's synthetic performers, see California's deepfake disclosure statutes and the voice-cloning laws that followed Tennessee's ELVIS Act. Performers concerned about their own likeness being used without consent may also want to review state-by-state right of publicity protections.

This article provides general legal information about a newly enacted California statute and is not legal advice. It covers California state law only, based on the chaptered text of SB 1050 as of the verification date below. Laws can be amended, and enforcement guidance may develop before the January 1, 2027 operative date. Consult a licensed attorney for advice about a specific advertisement, campaign, or business.

Related articles

• California's broader framework for AI-related laws
• California's deepfake disclosure statutes
• Voice-cloning laws that followed Tennessee's ELVIS Act
• State-by-state right of publicity protections
• AI laws and regulation across the United States

Last updated: 2026-09-18. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-18.