New York Synthetic Performer Law: What Advertisers Need to Know

On June 9, 2026, , which governs the use of AI-generated “synthetic performers” in advertising, takes effect. The first-of-its-kind law is designed to promote transparency and protect consumers by requiring disclosures when advertisements use AI-generated talent.

The law arrives at a moment of rapid transformation in the marketing ecosystem. Companies project that AI will account for more than 50% of all marketing activities within the next three years, according to the . Meanwhile, the absence of a comprehensive federal regulatory framework has prompted states to step in, with a growing number pursuing legislation aimed at addressing consumer protection and safeguarding the rights of creative professionals. Against this backdrop, advertisers should understand both the requirements of New York’s new law and how it fits into the broader landscape of AI regulation in advertising.

New York’s “Synthetic Performer Law”

Under the statute, a “synthetic performer” is defined as a “digitally created asset created, reproduced, or modified by computer, using generative artificial intelligence or a software algorithm, that is intended to create the impression that the asset is engaging in an audiovisual and/or visual performance of a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer.”

The new law requires advertisers and agencies, with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer is used in an advertisement, to conspicuously disclose such fact in the advertisement. Failure to make such disclosure may result in civil penalties of $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for subsequent violations. Media platforms and publishers that merely host advertisements (e.g., newspapers, magazines, streaming services, television networks) are expressly exempt from liability under the statute.

The disclosure requirement does not apply to all AI-generated content. To fall within the statute, the digital asset must (1) create the impression of a human performance and (2) not be recognizable as an identifiable natural person. Accordingly, those depicting animals, inanimate objects or other clearly non human entities, as well as digital replicas or digital twins (whether they are of celebrities or any laypeople) are outside the scope of the statute.  

Consumer Perception and Strategic Considerations

Despite its growing adoption, generative AI continues to face skepticism from consumers. Surveys indicate that are at least somewhat uncomfortable with AI-generated advertisements. That discomfort has translated into public backlash against AI-driven campaigns. In summer 2024, after releasing a commercial that used AI to depict the company’s founder, Charles Lazarus, at different ages, and when it experimented with product photos created entirely from generative AI in a purported effort to increase diversity for choosing to generate non white models with AI rather than hiring a more diverse set of human models.

Given these reactions and new public disclosure requirements, some advertisers may consider avoiding synthetic performers altogether by instead creating AI-generated “twins” of real models or actors. That approach, however, presents its own complications.

Digital Replica Laws

The use of “digital replicas,” AI-generated versions of real individuals, is governed by a growing and evolving patchwork of state right-of-publicity statutes and labor laws. In addition, the SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract (and other SAG-AFTRA collective bargaining agreements) now expressly addresses the creation and use of digital replicas, including requirements relating to consent, notice and compensation.

States including New York, California, Illinois and Tennessee have enacted or expanded right-of-publicity laws to address emerging risks associated with the use of AI, particularly the unauthorized use of a person’s voice, image or likeness through digital replication. These laws are intended to strengthen protections for individuals against digital simulation of their persona without permission. Unauthorized use may expose companies to significant civil liability, including actual damages, disgorgement of profits, and in some cases, statutory damages.

Separately, certain states (notably and ) impose requirements affecting the enforceability of agreements that authorize the creation or use of digital replicas, particularly in the employment and entertainment context. For example, in New York, contractual provisions allowing the use of a digital replica of a performer’s voice or likeness in certain contexts may not be enforceable unless: (1) they include a “reasonably specific description of the intended use of the digital replica” and (2) the performer is represented by legal counsel or a labor union in entering into the contract. The further protects fashion models by requiring clients and management companies to obtain separate, written consent for the creation and use of a digital replica. Failing to do so carries civil penalties and possible civil liability for management companies.

These statutory protections are reinforced by the 2025 SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract, which includes parallel requirements relating to disclosure, consent, and compensation. As a result, advertisers cannot rely on broad, open-ended consent language to create and deploy digital replicas of human beings in New York or California, or where SAG-AFTRA jurisdiction is implicated. Instead, they should obtain use-specific consent, ensure appropriate representation where required and clearly define the scope of each intended use. Attempts to secure sweeping rights to exploit a digital replica are increasingly vulnerable to challenge, both under state law and under union obligations, and should be approached with caution.

Key Takeaways

Generative AI can offer meaningful benefits to advertisers, including lower production costs, faster time to market and increased flexibility. As adoption continues to accelerate, companies that fail to engage with this technology risk falling behind more agile competitors.

At the same time, the regulatory and reputational risks are significant. To use generative AI responsibly and effectively, advertisers should:

• Update internal guidelines and review processes to ensure compliance with applicable disclosure requirements;
• Evaluate how third-party agencies, production partners or vendors use (or plan to use) generative AI in creating marketing assets and update contractual protection, including representations, warranties and indemnities, as appropriate;
• Obtain clear, use-specific consent before creating or using digital replicas of human performers;
• Account for additional obligations when working with SAG-AFTRA talent; and
• Consider consumer perception and brand risk alongside legal compliance needs.

Generative AI is likely to remain a central feature of modern advertising. Advertisers that take a proactive, disciplined approach grounded in transparency, contractual protections and alignment across legal and creative teams will be best positioned to capture its benefits while minimizing legal exposure and protecting brand integrity.

N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f; Cal. Civ. Code § 3344; 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1075/30; Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101.