California's SB 1050 Requires a Disclosure on Ads That Prominently Feature AI 'Synthetic Performers'

California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 16 signed Senate Bill 1050, making it unlawful to publish a video or audio advertisement that prominently features an AI-generated "synthetic performer" without a clear and conspicuous disclosure. California is the second state, after New York, to adopt such a rule.

Newsom signed the bill at the Los Angeles headquarters of SAG-AFTRA, the performers' union that sponsored it, alongside its author, state Senator Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento), according to the governor's office. The bill history shows the Senate agreed to the Assembly's amendments on August 31 by a vote of 40 to 0.

The chaptered text, filed with the Secretary of State on September 16 as Chapter 246 of the Statutes of 2026, adds Section 17610 to the Business and Professions Code. It defines a synthetic performer as a digital figure, voice or representation created in whole or in part with generative AI that gives the realistic impression of a human performance by someone "who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural person." That covers invented AI people, including AI voices, rather than digital replicas of real performers.

The disclosure duty applies only when the synthetic performer appears "prominently," which the statute limits to three cases: the performer is in the foreground demonstrating or illustrating the product or service; it provides or voices the narration or commercial message, on or off camera; or it illustrates or reacts to that narration or message. The disclosure must use wording "substantially similar to" one of two phrases in the statute: "this performance features a synthetic performer" or "no human performer is depicted."

SB 1050 defines "clear and conspicuous" as a disclosure that is difficult to miss, easily understandable and likely to be noticed by a reasonable consumer, taking the medium, format and context into account. The text sets no type size, duration or screen position.

Two categories are exempt. The law does not apply to advertisements for expressive works such as films, television programs, streaming content, documentaries and video games, provided the synthetic performer is used in the ad consistently with its use in the work. It also does not apply where generative AI is used solely for language translation of a human performer or for other accessibility features. The statute says it does not restrict the creation, distribution or exhibition of synthetic content.

A violation counts as a violation of Section 17500, California's false advertising statute, and may be enforced under the state's unfair competition law. The Legislative Counsel's digest notes that existing law makes false advertising a misdemeanor and says the bill expands the scope of that crime. Separately, a broadcaster, streaming service, online platform, ad network or other "advertising medium" that is served with a court order finding an ad in violation must remove or stop disseminating it in California, and stop accepting payment for it, as soon as commercially reasonable and technically feasible.

Neither the governor's release nor the bill text states when the requirement begins. The chaptered text contains no urgency clause and no delayed operative date. Under Article IV, Section 8 of the California Constitution, a non-urgency statute enacted at a regular session takes effect on the January 1 that follows a 90-day period after enactment, which points to January 1, 2027.

Major advertising trade groups opposed the bill. In a September 4 letter asking Newsom for a veto, the Association of National Advertisers, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation and the Digital Advertising Alliance said the bill creates an "overbroad mandatory labeling regime" and exposes businesses to opportunistic litigation, according to a MediaPost report by Wendy Davis carried by Yahoo News. The groups argued the mandate applies whether or not a synthetic performer is likely to deceive a consumer about a material claim.

Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor, told MediaPost that the court-order takedown provision appears inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that broadly shields interactive services from liability for third-party material.

"Californians deserve to know when the person selling them something isn't a person at all," Newsom said in the release. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA's national executive director and chief negotiator, said in the same release that the union helped craft the bill's language.

New York's synthetic performer disclosure law took effect in June 2026, according to the Transparency Coalition, an advocacy group that tracks AI legislation. A September 2 analysis by law firm Greenspoon Marder said New York's version is enforced through statutory civil penalties and exempts audio-only ads, while California's is limited to prominent uses but expressly reaches AI-generated voices.

For people who make ads with AI video or voice tools, the effect could be narrow but real. A spot fronted or narrated by a realistic, invented AI person and shown to California consumers would likely need one of the two phrases on screen or in the audio; a stylized character that does not give a realistic impression of a human falls outside the statute's definition as written. The statute applies to any person who creates such an ad and causes it to be published, wording that could reach a producer or agency as well as the brand. None of that has been tested in court. Law firm Kelley Drye advised advertisers and agencies to inventory their AI-generated content and build disclosures into approval workflows. Kelley Drye's summary quotes the disclosure as "synthetic digital performer" and says it must sit close to the performer; neither the word "digital" nor a proximity rule appears in the chaptered text.

Kelley Drye's summary lists two related measures, SB 1000 amending the California AI Transparency Act and SB 1111 on digital replicas, among the bills sent to Newsom, who has until September 30, 2026, to sign or veto what remains on his desk.