New York and California have passed laws that are intended to make it easier for consumers to distinguish real humans from AI-created ones. The New York law was created first and requires advertisers to disclose the use of synthetic human performers in commercial advertising. California’s law, SB-1050, becomes effective on January 1, 2027. There are important similarities and differences between the two laws. Both require disclosure in advertisements that incorporate realistic digital representations of humans that do not in fact exist. However, the laws do not define “synthetic performer” in the same way. New York’s law covers AI- or computer-generated figures, while California’s law covers only AI-generated ones. The California law also covers audio-only ads (e.g., AI-generated human voices) while the New York law does not expressly cover them. While both laws possess disclosure requirements, New York requires advertisers to “conspicuously disclose” the presence of synthetic performers, while California requires “clear and conspicuous” disclosures. Unlike New York, the California law defines those terms and states that disclosures must be “difficult to miss.” The California law also provides sample disclosure language. Another important difference exists between the two laws. California’s law applies only when an advertisement “prominently” includes a synthetic performer. The statute defines what constitutes a “prominent” use: the synthetic performer is “in the foreground and demonstrating or illustrating the product or service,” “providing or voicing the on- or off-camera narration or commercial message,” and/or “illustrating or reacting to the on- or off-camera narration or commercial message.” New York’s law is not as limited and covers situations where synthetic performers play minor roles. The states also possess different knowledge requirements. New York requires actual knowledge of the use of a synthetic performer before liability can attach. In California, there is no such requirement. Therefore, advertisers in California that rely upon ad agencies or other third parties must be particularly careful. Lastly, the two laws contain different penalties for violation. In California, a violation is subsumed by the state’s existing false-advertising and unfair-competition framework. Violations in California are therefore potentially more costly than a violation in New York, which imposes a $1,000 penalty for the first violation and $5,000 for subsequent violations. Contact the author with questions about whether and how the new laws may apply to your advertising activities. Richard B. Newman is an advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP. Not legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising. Filed under: Affiliate Marketing, Article, Blue Book, Featured, Guest Posts Tagged under: affiliate marketing, Compliance, FTC, Legal About the Author Richard B. Newman Richard Newman is an FTC defense lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP. He is a nationally recognized FTC defense lawyer and advertising compliance attorney. He regularly provides advertising counsel and represents clients in high-profile investigations (CIDs) and enforcement proceedings initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, departments of consumer affairs, and other federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over advertising and marketing practices. Richard’s practice also concentrates upon transactional matters relating to the dissemination of national advertising campaigns, including the gamut of affiliate marketing, telemarketing, lead generation, list management and licensing agreements.