California
California Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
California has more deepfake statutes on the books than any other state. As of 2026, state law covers all three major buckets: non-consensual intimate deepfakes carry both criminal penalties and a dedicated civil action; election deepfake restrictions exist but the broadest provision has been permanently enjoined on First Amendment grounds; and right-of-publicity law protects voice and digital likeness against unauthorized AI use for living and deceased performers alike.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in California?
It depends on the category of deepfake and what you do with it. California law does not ban the creation of all AI-generated images, but it does impose serious civil and criminal liability in three specific areas: intimate content, election-related content, and commercial use of someone's voice or likeness.
For intimate deepfakes, both creation and distribution can trigger liability. For election deepfakes, the surviving law targets disclosure failures rather than outright prohibition following the 2025 court ruling. For voice and likeness, unauthorized commercial use of an identifiable person's AI replica can ground a right-of-publicity claim regardless of whether the content is sexual or political.
Content that does not fall into these buckets, such as a non-sexual parody video, a fan-made AI music cover that is not sold commercially, or a clearly labeled satirical deepfake, generally is not criminalized under current California law. Federal law fills some remaining gaps, particularly for intimate content involving minors.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
California targets non-consensual intimate deepfakes through two parallel tracks: criminal and civil.
Criminal track: Penal Code § 647(j)(4) covers the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, and the statute expressly defines covered images to include photorealistic and computer-generated depictions of identifiable persons. Conviction is a misdemeanor carrying up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Repeat offenses, or cases where the victim was a minor, raise the maximum to one year in county jail and a $2,000 fine.
Civil track: Civil Code § 1708.86 (enacted by AB 602, effective January 1, 2020, and further amended effective January 1, 2026) creates a dedicated civil cause of action for victims of what the statute calls "digitized sexually explicit material." The statute covers content "created or substantially altered through digitization" that depicts an identifiable individual in the nude or appearing to engage in sexual conduct they did not actually perform. Victims can sue the creator, any person who intentionally distributes the content knowing consent was lacking, operators of services designed to generate such material, and anyone who aids or abets those operators.
Statutory damages run from $1,500 to $50,000 per violation. Where the defendant acted with malice, the cap rises to $250,000. Victims can also recover actual economic damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. The California Attorney General may seek civil penalties of $25,000 per violation (or $50,000 with malice) against bad actors.
AI-generated CSAM: California Penal Code § 311.1 covers obscene matter depicting minors, and the statutory definition of "matter" is broad enough to reach AI-generated images. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2256 expressly covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor and applies regardless of state law gaps.
Election and Political Deepfakes
California has tried harder than almost any other state to regulate AI-generated election content, but the law in this area is in flux after a federal court ruling.
Elections Code § 20010 (AB 730, 2019) remains in effect. It requires anyone who distributes materially deceptive audio or visual media depicting a candidate within 60 days of an election to include a clear disclosure that the content has been manipulated. This disclosure requirement is the original and currently enforceable layer of California election deepfake law.
AB 2839 (2024) went significantly further. Signed on September 17, 2024, it banned the distribution of "materially deceptive" AI-generated campaign content, allowing satire and parody only if labeled as manipulated, allowed injunctive relief before and after elections, and gave candidates and elections officials a private right of action. However, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against AB 2839 on October 2, 2024, about two weeks after it was signed, and permanently enjoined the law in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta. The court held that AB 2839 engaged in content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination by punishing speech only when it could harm a candidate's electoral prospects, while leaving positive deepfake portrayals untouched. The law remains unenforceable unless that ruling is reversed on appeal.
The practical upshot: the disclosure requirement of Elections Code § 20010 is still live and should be followed by anyone distributing AI-manipulated political content in California. The broader prohibition in AB 2839 cannot currently be enforced. Election-deepfake legislation across the country carries ongoing First Amendment risk; this case is the clearest illustration of that.
For a separate take on how California's general AI regulatory framework fits together, see California AI Laws, which covers the broader landscape including SB 942 AI content disclosure requirements.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
California's right-of-publicity law is among the most protective in the country and it explicitly covers voice.
Civil Code § 3344 prohibits any person from using another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without prior consent. Minimum damages are $750 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees. AI-generated voice clones that are identifiable as a real person and used to sell products, endorse services, or generate revenue without consent fall squarely within this provision.
Compare this to Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., eff. July 1, 2024), the national reference law on voice cloning, which created an explicit stand-alone right covering AI voice simulations. California's § 3344 achieves similar results through a broader right-of-publicity framework that has been in place for decades.
Civil Code § 3344.1 (amended by AB 1836, eff. January 1, 2025) extends protection to deceased performers. Anyone who produces or distributes an AI-generated digital replica of a deceased performer's voice or visual likeness without authorization from the estate can face statutory damages of at least $10,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. The protection lasts for 70 years after death. AB 1836 added specific exemptions for news, documentary, scholarly, satirical, and historical uses, as well as for "fleeting or incidental" appearances.
Labor Code § 927 (AB 2602, eff. January 1, 2025) addresses a different problem: entertainment industry contracts that buried AI waiver language in the fine print. The statute makes a contractual provision unenforceable if it allows an AI-generated digital replica to replace work the performer would have done in person, lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and was signed without the performer being represented by legal counsel or covered by a collective bargaining agreement addressing digital replica uses. A blanket "we can use your likeness in any medium" clause is no longer sufficient under California law.
These three provisions together make California one of the strongest states for performers and public figures challenging unauthorized AI voice or likeness use. For broader recording and voice consent rules, see California Recording Laws.
Federal Law That Applies in California
Federal statutes layer on top of California law and fill some gaps.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish non-consensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties run up to two years in prison (three years for content involving minors). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the platform-removal obligations. TAKE IT DOWN operates alongside California's Penal Code § 647(j)(4) and Civil Code § 1708.86; victims can pursue both federal and state remedies.
The FCC's AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) established that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Using an AI voice clone to call phones without prior express consent is illegal nationally. This ruling was triggered in part by an AI-generated fake-Biden robocall in the 2024 New Hampshire primary.
Federal CSAM law (18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B)) covers computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from a real minor, with no First Amendment defense for such material under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition's post-PROTECT Act framework.
Two high-profile proposed federal laws are NOT yet enacted. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes; the 118th Congress version passed the Senate but died in the House, and the current version passed the Senate again on January 13, 2026. The NO FAKES Act (S.1367, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI voice and likeness replicas. Neither has become law as of June 2026. See our coverage of the DEFIANCE Act for the latest.
For AI-specific meeting recording rules in California, the California AI Meeting Recording Laws page covers how state and federal law applies to AI transcription and summary tools.
What Victims Can Do
California gives deepfake victims more tools than most states.
For intimate deepfakes, victims have two immediate paths. First, file a report with local law enforcement or the California Attorney General; Penal Code § 647(j)(4) gives prosecutors a criminal hook. Second, file a civil lawsuit under Civil Code § 1708.86 without needing to prove specific monetary harm: statutory damages start at $1,500 per violation even if the financial loss is hard to quantify. Injunctive relief is available to force removal. The AG can also pursue the creator or platform operator independently.
For election deepfakes, the surviving enforcement avenue is a civil action under Elections Code § 20010, which lets the depicted candidate seek injunctive relief plus general or special damages, with attorney fees available to the prevailing party. The broader AB 2839 private right of action cannot currently be used.
For voice and likeness misuse, a right-of-publicity claim under Civil Code § 3344 (living persons) or § 3344.1 (deceased performers) offers damages and injunctive relief. Performers with AI-waiver concerns in contracts should consult counsel about Labor Code § 927 protections.
Platform takedowns: Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, victims can submit a removal notice directly to any covered platform, which must act within 48 hours. Many major platforms also have their own intimate-image abuse reporting systems independent of the statute.
For AI voice fraud by phone, complaints can be filed with the FCC and FTC.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing intimate deepfakes (criminal) | Penal Code § 647(j)(4) | Misdemeanor: up to 6 months county jail, $1,000 fine; 1 year and $2,000 for repeat offenses or minor victims |
| Creating or distributing intimate deepfakes (civil) | Civ. Code § 1708.86 | $1,500 to $50,000 per violation; up to $250,000 with malice |
| AG enforcement of intimate deepfakes | Civ. Code § 1708.86 | $25,000 per violation ($50,000 with malice) |
| Election media without disclosure (60-day window) | Elections Code § 20010 | Injunctive relief and damages (civil action by the candidate) |
| Unauthorized AI commercial use of voice or likeness | Civ. Code § 3344 | $750 minimum or actual damages + attorney fees |
| Unauthorized AI replica of deceased performer | Civ. Code § 3344.1 | $10,000 minimum or actual damages |
| Performer contract with unlawful AI waiver | Lab. Code § 927 | Contract provision unenforceable; performer retains rights |
| Publishing non-consensual intimate deepfakes (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 for minors) |
| AI voice clone robocall without consent | TCPA / FCC 24-17 | FCC civil penalties up to $23,000+ per call |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. California deepfake and AI law is changing rapidly: several statutes cited here were enacted or amended within the past two years, and court challenges to election-deepfake rules are ongoing. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or need guidance on compliance, consult a licensed California attorney.
Sources
California deepfake and AI voice law spans multiple statutes and a significant federal court ruling. The site renders citations below from verified primary sources.
Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in California?
It depends on the content and your intent. Creating and distributing an AI-generated intimate image of an identifiable person without their consent is a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 647(j)(4) and also grounds a civil lawsuit under Civil Code § 1708.86. Using someone's AI-replicated voice or likeness for commercial purposes without consent violates Civil Code § 3344. Not all deepfakes are criminalized: clearly labeled satire or parody that does not depict intimate content or constitute commercial misuse of a person's likeness generally is not a crime under current California law.
Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in California?
Yes, if the content is sexually explicit. Civil Code § 1708.86 gives you a direct civil cause of action against the creator and distributor of intimate deepfakes with statutory damages of $1,500 to $50,000 per violation, or up to $250,000 if they acted with malice. You can also seek injunctive relief to force removal and recover attorney fees. If your voice or likeness was used commercially without consent, Civil Code § 3344 provides a separate claim with minimum damages of $750 or actual damages.
Is deepfake porn a crime in California?
Yes. Distributing non-consensual intimate deepfakes is a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 647(j)(4), punishable by up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine, or up to one year and $2,000 for repeat offenses or when the victim is a minor. Sexual deepfakes of minors can result in felony charges under California and federal CSAM laws. Victims can also pursue civil remedies under Civil Code § 1708.86 independently of any criminal prosecution.
Are AI voice clones illegal in California?
Using someone's AI-cloned voice for commercial purposes without their consent is a violation of Civil Code § 3344, California's right-of-publicity law, which explicitly lists voice as a protected attribute. Using an AI voice clone in a robocall without prior express consent is illegal federally under the FCC's 2024 ruling. Labor Code § 927 also makes entertainment contract clauses authorizing an AI voice replica unenforceable when they lack a reasonably specific description of the intended uses and the performer signed without legal counsel or union representation.
Is there an election deepfake law in California?
Partially. Elections Code § 20010 (AB 730, 2019) requires a clear disclosure on materially deceptive campaign media distributed within 60 days of an election and is still in effect. AB 2839 (2024) tried to go further with an outright prohibition, but a federal court permanently enjoined it in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta, ruling that the law discriminated based on viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. The disclosure obligation survives; the prohibition does not.
Does California law protect deceased celebrities from deepfakes?
Yes. Civil Code § 3344.1, amended by AB 1836 (effective January 1, 2025), protects deceased performers from unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas of their voice or likeness for 70 years after death. Anyone who produces or distributes such a replica without consent from the estate faces statutory damages of at least $10,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Exemptions apply for news, documentary, scholarly, and satirical uses, and for incidental appearances.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in California?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that criminalizes publishing non-consensual intimate deepfakes and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. It applies everywhere in the United States, including California. It operates alongside, not instead of, California's own Penal Code § 647(j)(4) and Civil Code § 1708.86, so California victims can pursue both federal and state remedies.
Can a performer void a contract that gives away their AI voice rights?
Yes, under California Labor Code § 927 (AB 2602, effective January 1, 2025). A contractual clause that allows an AI-generated digital replica to be used in place of work the performer would have done in person is unenforceable if it lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended uses and the performer was not represented by legal counsel or a union with a collective bargaining agreement covering digital replicas. A blanket rights-waiver clause is not sufficient.
Updates
Corrected Civil Code § 3344: the statute requires prior consent, not prior written consent, so provable oral consent satisfies it.
Corrected a KeyTakeaways bullet that said Civil Code 3344.1 requires 'written' consent for a deceased personality's digital replica; the statute's text requires consent from the person(s) holding the right under subdivision (c), with no writing requirement (unlike the separate deepfake-pornography statute, Civil Code 1708.86, which does define a written-agreement 'Consent').
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 5 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Civil Code
§ 1708.86In force
(a) For purposes of this section: (1) “Authorized representative” means an attorney, talent agent, or personal manager authorized to represent a depicted individual if the depicted individual is represented. (2) (A) “Consent” means an agreement written in plain language signed knowingly and voluntarily by the depicted individual that includes a general description of the digitized sexually explicit material and the visual or audiovisual work in which it will be incorporated. (B) A depicted individual may rescind consent by delivering written notice within three business days from the date consent was given to the person in whose favor consent was made, unless one of the following requirements is satisfied: (i) The depicted individual is given at least 72 hours to review the terms of the agreement before signing it. (ii) The depicted individual’s authorized representative provides written approval of the signed agreement. (3) “Deepfake pornography service” means an internet website, mobile application, or other service the primary purpose of which is to create digitized sexually explicit material.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 3344In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) (1) Any person 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 or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of their parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by them as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove their deductible expenses.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: Photo Video Recording Consent Form
§ 3344.1In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) (1) (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a person who uses a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by the injured party or parties, as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties shall be required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the use, and the person who violated the section shall prove the person’s deductible expenses.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: Name and Likeness Licensing Agreement Template, Can You Defame a Dead Person? US Defamation Law After Death (2026)
California Labor Code
§ 927In force
(a) A provision in an agreement between an individual and any other person for the performance of personal or professional services is unenforceable only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if the provision meets all of the following conditions: (1) The provision allows for the creation and use of a digital replica of the individual’s voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the provision does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the digital replica. (B) Failure to include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of a digital replica does not render the provision unenforceable if the uses are consistent with the terms of the contract for the performance of personal or professional services and the fundamental character of the photography or soundtrack as recorded or performed.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
California Penal Code
§ 647In forcecited in 15 of our articles
Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and in subdivisions (k) and (l), a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) An individual who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, the individual manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (2) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with another person who is 18 years of age or older in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 1.79 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- California Civil Code § 1708.86 (AB 602, deepfake intimate images civil action)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code § 647 (subdivision (j)(4), non-consensual intimate images including AI-generated)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code § 3344 (right of publicity, name, voice, likeness)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code § 3344.1 (deceased personalities digital replica, amended by AB 1836, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Labor Code § 927 (AB 2602, performer AI digital replica contract protections, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (federal intimate deepfake criminal law, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- FCC Ruling FCC 24-17: AI-generated voices in robocalls are 'artificial' under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov