California SB 1111 Adds AI Digital Replicas to Likeness Law

California SB 1111 Adds AI Digital Replicas to Likeness Law

California enacted Senate Bill 1111 on September 30, 2026 as Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026. It writes AI "digital replicas" into the state's commercial right of publicity in Civil Code Section 3344 and into criminal false personation law. It takes effect January 1, 2027.

Information last verified on October 2, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses California state law: the civil right of publicity in Civil Code Sections 3344 and 3344.1, and the Penal Code false personation provisions, as changed by SB 1111. It does not address federal law, other states' digital replica statutes, copyright, or California's separate election deepfake and nonconsensual intimate image statutes.

What Happened

Senate Bill 1111 of the 2025 to 2026 regular session was approved by the Governor on September 30, 2026 and filed with the Secretary of State the same day. The Secretary of State assigned it Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026.

Its official title is narrow and tells you exactly what it does: "An act to amend Section 3344 of the Civil Code, and to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 540) to Title 13 of Part 1 of the Penal Code, relating to digital replicas."

The bill moved almost without opposition. The Senate passed it on third reading 36 to 0 on April 30, 2026, and the Assembly passed it 77 to 1 on August 28, 2026. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 8, 2026. It required only a majority vote and carried no appropriation.

SB 1111 was authored by Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento). The Legislature's bill record lists her as the sole lead author with no coauthors, and the Governor's September 30, 2026 signing release lists the bill the same way.

SB 1111 was signed alongside a group of other artificial intelligence measures the same day. Two we checked directly: AB 2713 (Wicks) became Chapter 856 and amends Section 22757.3.1 of the Business and Professions Code, and SB 1159 (Cabaldon) became Chapter 863 and amends provisions of the Government Code and the Public Resources Code relating to artificial intelligence. A third, SB 1000 (Becker), became Chapter 861 and, unlike SB 1111, carries an urgency clause, so it took effect immediately. That contrast matters for anyone reading headlines from that day: the bills were signed together but they do not all start on the same date.

What the Law Actually Says

Two different legal machines are involved, with different elements, different remedies and different people who can use them. Conflating them is the most common error in coverage of this bill, so take them one at a time.

The civil track: Civil Code Section 3344

Section 3344 is California's statutory right of publicity for living people, and it is a commercial-use statute. Under subdivision (a)(1), anyone who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise or goods, or for purposes of advertising, selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without that person's prior consent, is liable for damages.

The remedy is what makes the section usable by ordinary people. Beyond actual damages, the violator owes the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus any profits attributable to the unauthorized use. The injured party need only prove gross revenue attributable to the use; the defendant must prove deductible expenses. Punitive damages are available. And the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, which is why a relatively small claim can still find counsel.

Section 3344 was already amended once recently. Statutes of 2025, Chapter 590 (SB 683), effective January 1, 2026, added subdivision (a)(2), which lets a party seek an injunction or temporary restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527 and, where the court grants a removal order under Section 527(c), requires the respondent to complete the removal or recall, or cease publication or distribution, within two business days from service. SB 1111 leaves that takedown mechanism intact. If you have read older material on Section 3344 that stops at damages, it is out of date.

SB 1111 then does two things to Section 3344, effective January 1, 2027.

First, it adds a new subdivision (f): "For the purposes of this section, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined in Section 3344.1."

Second, and much less reported, it deletes the old subdivision (c), the rebuttable presumption that applied when an employee's photograph or likeness appeared incidentally and not essentially in an advertisement prepared by the employer. That presumption shifted the burden of producing evidence toward a finding that failure to get the employee's consent was not a knowing use. It is gone. Because it is deleted rather than reserved, every later subdivision moves up a letter. On January 1, 2027, the news, public affairs, sports broadcast or account and political campaign exemption becomes 3344(c) rather than 3344(d); the commercial medium provision becomes (d); the advertising medium owners and employees provision becomes (e); and the cumulative remedies clause stays at (g).

That relettering is a citation trap. Anything written before 2027 that cites "Section 3344(d)" for the news exemption will point at the wrong subdivision afterwards.

What "digital replica" actually means

The operative definition is not written into Section 3344. New subdivision (f) borrows it from Civil Code Section 3344.1, the deceased personality statute, where it was placed by AB 1836 (Statutes of 2024, Chapter 258), effective January 1, 2025.

Section 3344.1(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) defines a digital replica as "a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual that is embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, or transmission in which the actual individual either did not actually perform or appear, or the actual individual did perform or appear, but the fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered."

Three elements are doing real work there. The representation must be computer-generated and highly realistic. It must be readily identifiable as that particular individual's voice or visual likeness. And either the person did not perform or appear at all, or they did but the fundamental character of the performance has been materially altered. A crude or unidentifiable fake does not obviously clear the first two.

The same provision carries an exclusion at clause (II): a digital replica does not include electronic reproduction, use of a sample of one sound recording or audiovisual work in another, remixing, mastering, or digital remastering of a sound recording or audiovisual work that the copyright holder authorized.

Note the embodiment language, because summaries drop it. The Legislative Counsel's Digest for SB 1111 paraphrases the definition without the "embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, or transmission" clause, but the enacted cross-reference imports the full statutory definition, including that clause.

The criminal track: new Penal Code Section 540

The bill's second section adds a new chapter to the Penal Code rather than editing the old impersonation crimes. Chapter 9, beginning at Section 540, is added to Title 13 of Part 1 and is headed "Offense Involving the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology." Title 13 is the crimes against property title, and existing Chapter 8, Sections 528 through 539, is the False Personation and Cheats chapter, so the new chapter sits directly after it.

Section 540(a) reads: "For the purposes of any provision of this code in which the false impersonation of another is a required element, including, without limitation, Sections 528.5, 529, and 530, false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another." Subdivision (b) ties "digital replica" to the same Civil Code Section 3344.1 meaning.

Read that carefully. It is a definitional rule of general application, not an amendment to any particular offence. Sections 528.5, 529 and 530 are named as illustrations, prefaced by "without limitation," so the rule reaches any Penal Code provision that has false impersonation as a required element.

The offence most readers will care about is Penal Code Section 528.5, added by Statutes of 2010, Chapter 335 (SB 1411). It makes it a public offence to knowingly and without consent credibly impersonate another actual person through or on an internet website or by other electronic means, for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding another person. An impersonation is "credible" under subdivision (b) if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was the person impersonated.

The penalty under Section 528.5(d) is a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or both. Section 528.5(e) also gives a person who suffers damage or loss a civil action for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief, and subdivision (f) preserves prosecution under other law.

So the practical effect of new Section 540 on Section 528.5 is this: the existing elements still have to be met, including credibility, lack of consent, and the harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding purpose. What Section 540 settles is that doing it with an AI-generated replica counts as the impersonation, rather than leaving that to argument.

What SB 1111 does not do

It is not a general ban on synthetic media. Nothing in it makes creating or posting a digital replica unlawful by itself.

On the civil side, Section 3344 still requires a knowing commercial use: a use on or in products, merchandise or goods, or for advertising, selling or soliciting purchases. A digital replica made and shared with no commercial use attached is outside that section, whatever else it may violate.

The existing exemptions survive too. Uses in connection with any news, public affairs or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, are still outside the consent requirement, at the relettered 3344(c). The commercial medium provision still makes it a question of fact whether a use was so directly connected with commercial sponsorship or paid advertising as to require consent. Advertising media owners and employees are still shielded absent knowledge of the unauthorized use. And the First Amendment limits courts have read into the right of publicity are untouched by a definitional amendment.

On the criminal side, nothing new is criminalized on its own. Section 540 supplies a definition for offences that already exist.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The most useful way to read SB 1111 is as plumbing, not as a new right. California already had a strong commercial likeness statute with statutory minimum damages and fee-shifting, and since January 1, 2026 it has had a fast injunction and a two-business-day takedown obligation attached to it. The open question was whether an AI output that is not a photograph of you, and not a recording of your voice, is nonetheless your "voice or likeness" for purposes of that statute. SB 1111 answers that question by definition rather than leaving it to be litigated case by case.

That is a smaller change than "California bans deepfakes," and a more durable one. A definitional amendment inherits every limit and every defence already built into the host statute, which is both its strength and the reason it will disappoint anyone expecting a broad remedy.

The borrowing of the definition from Section 3344.1 creates one genuine interpretive gap worth flagging now. Section 3344.1 contains an express list of permitted digital replica uses for deceased personalities at subdivision (a)(2)(A)(ii), including uses for "comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody," documentary or biographical uses, and fleeting or incidental uses. New Section 3344(f) imports only the definition from Section 3344.1, not those exceptions. Section 3344 has no express satire or parody carve-out of its own. Whether a satirical digital replica of a living person is reached by Section 3344 therefore turns on the section's own commercial-use element, its news, public affairs, sports and political campaign exemption, and constitutional limits, rather than on the carve-out that protects the same use when the subject is dead. We are not going to predict how that gets resolved; we are flagging that the two sections are not symmetrical on their face.

The deletion of the employee presumption deserves more attention than it has received. It has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. It changes the evidentiary posture for any California employer that puts an employee's image in an advertisement without documented consent, incidentally or otherwise. Businesses that have relied on that presumption lose it on January 1, 2027, which is a compliance issue separate from the digital replica question that gave the bill its name.

Finally, resist the "first in the nation" framing. California already had digital replica statutes before this bill: AB 1836 of 2024 put the definition and a deceased performer cause of action into Civil Code Section 3344.1, and AB 2602 of 2024 added Labor Code Section 927, which makes certain contract provisions authorizing a digital replica unenforceable in agreements for an individual's personal or professional services. Both took effect January 1, 2025. The Governor's own signing release for September 30, 2026 applies its "first-in-the-nation" language to other bills in the batch, not to SB 1111. SB 1111 extends an existing framework to living people's commercial likeness claims and to criminal impersonation. That is significant without being novel.

How This Affects You

If someone makes an AI version of your face or voice in California, the practical question from January 1, 2027 is which track fits what happened.

If the replica was used to sell something, in an advertisement, on merchandise, or to solicit purchases, that is the Civil Code Section 3344 track. You would be looking at the knowing-use element, your identifiability in the replica, the greater of $750 or actual damages plus attributable profits, possible punitive damages, attorney's fees if you prevail, and the Section 527 injunction route with its two-business-day removal deadline. Whether the replica is realistic enough and identifiable enough to meet the statutory definition is a real element, not a formality.

If the replica was used to impersonate you electronically in order to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud, that is the Penal Code Section 528.5 track, which is a criminal matter a prosecutor brings, with a separate civil action available under Section 528.5(e). New Section 540 provides that false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another, for offenses that have false impersonation as an element.

If the use was non-commercial, was part of news, public affairs or sports reporting, or was part of a political campaign, Section 3344 may not reach it at all, and a different statute or no statute may apply. Our California deepfake and AI likeness guide walks through the other California provisions that can apply to synthetic media, and we track how state right of publicity law varies across the country, because California's framework is not representative.

For the criminal and fraud side across jurisdictions, see our coverage of the criminal side of AI impersonation. For cloned voices specifically, including the Tennessee ELVIS Act and the states that followed, see our page on AI voice cloning laws. For the wider set of California artificial intelligence rules that arrived in the same period, see California's broader AI rulebook.

Deadlines, elements and defences are specific to facts, and the statute of limitations for a publicity claim is not addressed by SB 1111. Talk to a California lawyer about your own situation.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers California state law and reflects sources verified on October 2, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• California deepfake and AI likeness rules we track
• How the right of publicity differs state to state
• When an AI impersonation becomes a crime
• AI voice cloning laws
• California's broader AI rulebook

---

Last updated: 2026-10-02. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-02.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does California SB 1111 take effect?

January 1, 2027. SB 1111 was approved by the Governor and chaptered on September 30, 2026 as Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026, but it contains no urgency clause and the Legislature's status record flags it 'Non-Urgency.' Under California Constitution article IV, section 8(c)(1), a statute enacted at a regular session takes effect on January 1 following a 90-day period from enactment. Only urgency statutes, tax levies, appropriations for usual current expenses and statutes calling elections take effect immediately under section 8(c)(3).

What exactly does SB 1111 change in Civil Code 3344?

Two things. It adds subdivision (f), which provides that for purposes of Section 3344 a voice or likeness includes a digital replica as defined in Section 3344.1. It also deletes the former subdivision (c) rebuttable presumption about an employee's photograph or likeness appearing incidentally in an advertisement, which reletters the rest of the section so the news, public affairs, sports and political campaign exemption becomes 3344(c).

Does SB 1111 amend Penal Code 528.5, 529 or 530?

No. The bill adds a new Penal Code Chapter 9 beginning at Section 540, within Title 13 of Part 1, headed 'Offense Involving the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology.' Section 540(a) states that for any provision of the Penal Code in which false impersonation of another is a required element, including without limitation Sections 528.5, 529 and 530, false impersonation includes using a digital replica with intent to impersonate another. Those three sections are named as examples, not amended.

What counts as a 'digital replica' under California law?

Civil Code Section 3344.1(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), which SB 1111 cross-references, defines it as a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual, embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work or transmission, in which the individual either did not actually perform or appear, or did but the fundamental character of the performance or appearance was materially altered. It excludes authorized sampling, remixing, mastering and digital remastering.

Can I sue over an AI deepfake of me in California that was not used commercially?

Not under Civil Code Section 3344, which requires a knowing use on or in products, merchandise or goods, or for advertising, selling or soliciting purchases. SB 1111 does not change that element. A non-commercial deepfake may still implicate other California statutes or common law claims depending on the facts, which is a question for a California lawyer.

How much is a Civil Code 3344 claim worth?

The statute sets a floor rather than a ceiling. Section 3344(a)(1) makes the violator liable for the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus profits from the unauthorized use attributable to it, with punitive damages available and attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. Since Statutes of 2025, Chapter 590 (SB 683), subdivision (a)(2) also allows an injunction or temporary restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527, with a two-business-day removal deadline where the court orders removal.

Does SB 1111 protect satire or parody that uses a digital replica?

The bill does not say, and the two statutes are not symmetrical. Civil Code Section 3344.1 has an express carve-out for comment, criticism, scholarship, satire or parody, but that carve-out applies to the deceased personality cause of action, and new Section 3344(f) imports only the definition from 3344.1, not its exceptions. A claim about a living person would run through Section 3344's own commercial-use element, its news, public affairs, sports and political campaign exemption, and constitutional limits. This is unsettled on the face of the statute.

Is SB 1111 the first digital replica law in California?

No. AB 1836 (Statutes of 2024, Chapter 258) added the digital replica definition and a deceased personality cause of action to Civil Code Section 3344.1, and AB 2602 (Statutes of 2024, Chapter 259) added Labor Code Section 927 on digital replica contract provisions for individuals performing personal or professional services. Both took effect January 1, 2025. The Governor's September 30, 2026 signing release applies its 'first-in-the-nation' language to other bills, not to SB 1111.

Who authored SB 1111?

Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento). The Legislature's bill record lists her as sole lead author with no principal coauthors or coauthors, and the Governor's September 30, 2026 signing release credits her as well.