California AI Transparency Act (SB 942)
Effective date
Penalty
$5,000 per violation per day. Third-party licensees face injunctive relief and attorney fees only.
Obligations mapped
15 obligations
Legislative update
Governor Newsom's signing message for the AB 853 amendment encouraged follow-up legislation in 2026 to address 'technical feasibility issues.' No specific bill has been introduced as of April 2026, but amendments are expected before the August 2, 2026 effective date.
Overview
If your company operates a generative AI system with more than 1 million monthly visitors that creates images, video, or audio, the California AI Transparency Act may apply starting August 2, 2026. Where applicable, you may need to provide a free public tool to detect AI-generated content, embed hidden provenance metadata in all generated content, and offer users a visible 'AI-generated' label option. If you license your system to others, your contracts may need to require them to maintain these features. Large online platforms may need to detect and display provenance data starting January 1, 2027. Device manufacturers may need to embed provenance data by default starting January 1, 2028. Violations carry penalties of $5,000 per day.
This is an AI-specific state law.
See if this regulation applies to your company with the free exposure scan.
Who this applies to
This regulation applies to the following roles:
- Developers and vendors of covered AI systems
- Organizations operating in California
This regulation applies to companies that build, develop, or sell AI tools, models, or systems. If your company creates AI products that other businesses or consumers use, this regulation may apply to you.
SB 942
AI categories covered
- content generation
- content alteration
Specific AI use cases:
- image generation
- video generation
- audio generation
- multimodal generation
- Content generation
What this requires you to do
15 obligations identified from statutory analysis.
Section 22757.3.1(a)(3)
Section 22757.2(b)
Section 22757.3.1(a)(1)
Section 22757.3.2(a)
Section 22757.3.3
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.
Enforcement and penalties
$5,000 per violation per day. Third-party licensees face injunctive relief and attorney fees only.
Penalty amounts are based on statutory text and may be subject to adjustment, judicial interpretation, or enforcement discretion.
Legislative history
effective
AB 853 hosting platform provisions take effect.
effective
SB 942 plus AB 853 core provisions become operative.
amended
AB 853 signed. Delays operative date to August 2, 2026. Expands scope to hosting platforms, large online platforms, and capture device manufacturers.
Related regulations
- UpcomingPrivacy ADM
CCPA/CPRA Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations
California's ADMT regulations require businesses using automated decisionmaking technology for significant decisions (employment, finance, housing, education, healthcare) to provide pre-use notices, offer opt-out rights, respond to access requests, and conduct risk assessments with annual CPPA filing under penalty of perjury.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Transparency in Frontier AI Act (SB 53)
Requires developers of frontier AI models trained above the statutory compute threshold (10^26 FLOPs) to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services, and implement whistleblower protections. Also reaches large frontier developers with annual revenues over $500 million. Replaces the vetoed SB 1047 with a narrower transparency approach. Currently applies to approximately five to eight companies worldwide given the FLOP threshold. Includes a federal deference provision: compliance with comparable federal standards, including the EU AI Act, is accepted where the statute allows.
Effective
- UpcomingAI-Specific
Washington AI Content Disclosure Act (HB 1170)
AI content provenance and watermarking requirements for providers with 1 million or more monthly Washington users. Requires latent disclosures (watermarks) in AI-generated image, video, and audio content. Extended implementation period to January 1, 2028. Only applies to providers with 1 million or more monthly Washington users. Closely aligned with California SB 942 (California AI Transparency Act). AG-exclusive enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act. No private right of action.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California AI Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013)
Requires developers of generative AI systems or services available to Californians to publish high-level documentation on training data, including sources, types, and curation. Applies retroactively to systems released on or after January 1, 2022. No trade secret exemption. Internal development or material modification of third-party GenAI can be in scope. xAI challenged the law in federal court; on March 4, 2026 the court denied a preliminary injunction, so AB 2013 remains in full effect while litigation continues. Major providers published required documentation by January 1, 2026.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare Provider Generative AI Disclosure (AB 3030)
Requires healthcare providers to disclose when generative AI is used in patient interactions and to document that use in the patient record. Focuses on licensed providers and clinical settings. AB 489 (2025) later extended parallel transparency duties to developers and deployers of healthcare AI, not only providers.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare AI Deceptive Terms Act (AB 489)
AB 3030 (2024) requires healthcare providers to disclose generative AI use to patients and in records. AB 489 (2025) extends similar duties to technology developers and deployers whose healthcare AI communicates with patients or presents as credentialed care. It bars false claims of professional licenses or credentials and requires clear disclosures in healthcare settings.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California FEHA regulations on automated decision systems (Civil Rights Council)
California Civil Rights Council regulations apply FEHA's anti-discrimination framework to automated decision systems (ADS) in employment. Defines ADS broadly to include AI, ML, and algorithmic tools. Makes anti-bias testing evidence relevant to discrimination claims and defenses. Requires reasonable accommodation when ADS disadvantages disabled or religious individuals. Prohibits pre-offer medical inquiries via ADS. Employers with 5+ employees are covered. 4-year record retention required.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Companion Chatbots Act (SB 243)
California's Companion Chatbot Act may apply to operators of AI chatbots designed for ongoing social interaction. Where applicable, operators may need to disclose the AI nature of the chatbot, maintain safety protocols for self-harm and suicide content, provide crisis referrals, and implement special protections for minors including break reminders and content restrictions. Operators may need to publish safety protocols and file annual reports with the Office of Suicide Prevention starting July 2027.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replicas of Deceased Performers Act (AB 1836)
Restricts commercial uses of realistic AI-generated replicas of deceased performers' voices or likenesses in audiovisual works and sound recordings without consent from the personality's estate or other rightsholder.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replica Contract Protections (AB 2602)
Makes contract terms unenforceable when they allow digital replicas of a performer without the performer giving specific, informed consent. Two paths to enforceable consent: independent legal counsel review or union agreement. Companion to AB 1836.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California AI Definition Act (AB 2885)
Standardizes the legal definition of artificial intelligence across all California law. Defines AI as an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and can infer from input how to generate outputs that influence physical or virtual environments. Mirrors the OECD AI definition.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Non-Consensual Deepfake Pornography (SB 926)
Criminalizes creation and distribution of realistic deepfake intimate images without consent, if the creator or distributor knew or should have known it would cause serious emotional distress. Applies to AI-generated content.
Effective
California AI regulation guide lists every tracked rule for this jurisdiction with timelines and obligation tallies.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.