California has expressly brought digital replicas of a person’s voice and likeness within its commercial publicity-rights law, a development with direct relevance to broadcasters, voice performers and producers using artificial intelligence in advertising.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1111 on September 30, 2026. The official legislative history identifies it as Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026. The non-urgency measure is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027 under California’s normal effective-date rules.
The legislation amends Civil Code Section 3344 to expressly include digital replicas within the meaning of voice or likeness. The definition covers highly realistic, computer-generated representations readily identifiable as a particular person, including appearances or performances that person never made or that have been materially altered.
For radio, the issue extends beyond copying an existing recording. A recognizable synthetic version of a host’s or performer’s voice can raise identity-rights questions even when it delivers entirely new words.
The civil provision addresses knowing, unauthorized uses on products or in advertising, selling and soliciting purchases. Its remedies include damages and potential injunctive relief. The legislation also removes an existing rebuttable presumption concerning incidental use of an employee’s photograph or likeness in an advertisement or other publication.
Important limits remain. The amended section preserves its exception for uses connected with news, public affairs, sports broadcasts or accounts, and political campaigns. Paid advertising elsewhere in a publication does not, by itself, turn every use of a person’s identity into an advertisement.
The law also retains a qualification for media outlets distributing advertisements: liability under this section requires knowledge of the unauthorized use. That provision expressly addresses radio and television stations and networks, newspapers and other advertising media.
These exceptions apply to the specified civil provision. They should not be read as permission to fabricate someone’s participation, endorsement or words without considering other applicable laws.
Separately, SB 1111 adds Penal Code Section 540, clarifying that false impersonation can include using a digital replica with intent to impersonate another. Prosecutors would still need to establish the elements of the underlying criminal offense; the legislation does not make every synthetic voice a crime.
For station managers, advertising departments and independent publishers, the practical question is what permission exists for each use. A contract to record a commercial should not be treated as automatic authorization to build a reusable AI version of the performer. Agreements for synthetic voices need to address the intended uses, distribution, duration and any restrictions.
This law concerns voice, likeness and impersonation. It does not resolve whether copying recordings for AI training infringes copyright, nor does it prohibit all licensed synthetic narration. Those questions remain distinct from whether a recognizable person authorized the use of their identity.
Sources: SB 1111 official text; enactment history; California effective-date rules. General information, not legal advice.