AB 723 obligates real estate brokers, salespersons, and people acting on their behalf to disclose when an image in advertising or promotional material has been digitally altered and to provide access to the original, unaltered image via a publicly accessible URL, website, or QR code. The disclosure must be reasonably conspicuous and placed on or adjacent to the altered image.
The law defines “digitally altered image” broadly to include edits made with photo‑editing software or artificial intelligence that add, remove, or change physical or contextual elements of a property (fixtures, landscaping, neighboring views, etc.), while carving out routine adjustments such as color correction, cropping, and exposure. Practically, the bill forces listing workflows to preserve originals, adjust how images are hosted on controlled websites, and obligates marketing vendors and MLS operators to accommodate links or host originals themselves — creating new compliance and operational costs for the industry while increasing transparency for prospective buyers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires a clear, conspicuous statement on or next to any advert image that has been digitally altered and mandates a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible site holding the original unaltered image. If the broker or salesperson controls the posting website, they must post the unaltered images there or include a link to them.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California real estate brokers and salespersons, marketing vendors and photographers who edit listing images, MLS operators and listing platforms that host online ads, and consumers who rely on online property photos. Sellers will feel the secondary impact through changes to marketing options.
Why It Matters
This is a statutory, image‑level transparency rule for listings and marketing materials that treats AI‑based edits the same as traditional edits that materially change a property's depiction. That raises operational decisions about hosting originals, vendor contracts, and how platforms surface disclosures — and creates new compliance obligations without specifying enforcement mechanisms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 723 creates a straightforward disclosure requirement: when a broker, salesperson, or someone acting for them uses an image that has been altered through photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements of a property, the advertisement or promotional material must include a conspicuous statement saying the image was altered and give a link (or QR code) to a public web location where the original image is available. The notice must sit on or next to the altered image and must tell viewers that the unaltered images are accessible at the linked destination.
If the listing or advertisement appears on a website that the broker, salesperson, or their agent controls, the bill tightens the duty: the posting must include the unaltered images themselves, not just a description, although providing a link to a public page that hosts those originals satisfies the requirement. The statute permits the practical shortcut of linking rather than embedding originals, but it requires the disclosure language to point users to that link.The bill defines the covered edits broadly to capture modern tools: any image created by or at the direction of the broker or agent that adds, removes, or changes elements — from fixtures and furniture to exterior views and neighboring properties — is treated as a digitally altered image.
But routine technical fixes that do not change how the property is represented, like exposure, white balance, sharpening, cropping, and straightening, are excluded.Two practical consequences flow from this structure. First, brokers and vendors must preserve and publish originals or ensure reliable hosting of originals accessible by the public link; that requires changes to contracts, storage practices, and platform UX.
Second, the bill’s operative language assigns responsibility broadly — not just to the agent who posts the ad but to “persons acting on their behalf” — which brings photographers, virtual‑staging vendors, and social‑media managers within the compliance perimeter.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a reasonably conspicuous disclosure on or adjacent to any image that has been digitally altered, and that disclosure must include a link, URL, or QR code to the original unaltered image.
When an altered image is posted to a website controlled by the broker, salesperson, or their agent, the posting must include the original unaltered images or a link to them; linking counts as compliance if the disclosure points to the link.
The statute’s definition explicitly covers images altered with AI or photo‑editing software that add, remove, or change elements such as fixtures, furniture, flooring, landscaping, facades, floor plans, and views of neighboring properties.
Common photographic adjustments—lighting, sharpening, white balance, cropping, exposure, angle, straightening, and similar edits—are excluded when they do not change the representation of the property.
The duty attaches not only to brokers and salespersons but also to any person acting on their behalf, broadening responsibility to marketing vendors, photographers, and virtual‑staging providers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disclosure statement and link requirement for altered images
This subsection sets the core obligation: any advertisement or promotional material that includes a digitally altered image must carry a conspicuous statement adjacent to the image disclosing the alteration and providing a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible page with the original. Practically, that forces designers and platforms to reserve visible space near images for text or icons and to surface link/QR functionality in a way that consumers notice; it also raises questions about what qualifies as “reasonably conspicuous,” an ambiguity implementers will need to resolve in UI and policy decisions.
Posting originals on broker‑controlled websites (or linking to them)
When the broker or their agent posts the ad on a website they control, the law requires inclusion of the unaltered source images in the listing; however, the subsection expressly allows compliance by including a link to a publicly accessible location that hosts those originals. This gives firms flexibility (host vs. link) but creates operational choices: firms must decide whether to store originals on their own servers, rely on third‑party hosting, or maintain persistent public URLs, and they will need processes to ensure links remain live and identify who is responsible for link maintenance.
Definition of 'digitally altered image' — broad and technology‑neutral
The bill defines ‘digitally altered image’ to cover any image created by or at the direction of the broker or agent that has been edited with software or AI to add, remove, or change elements. The enumerated examples are sweeping—interior fixtures, hardscape and landscape, facades, floor plans, and exterior elements such as neighboring properties and views—intentionally written to capture contemporary AI capabilities and foreseeable future tools, so routine virtual staging and view modifications fall within the definition unless they meet the exception in (b)(2).
Permitted basic edits that do not change representation
The statute excludes purely technical photo adjustments—lighting, exposure, color correction, cropping, straightening, sharpening, and angle tweaks—so long as those edits do not change the representation of the real property. That carve‑out protects standard photography workflows, but it leaves an unresolved line‑drawing question about when an enhancement crosses into altering representation (for example, aggressively brightening a room or replacing a sky).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homebuyers and renters: They gain clearer signals about which listing images are faithful and can view original photos to judge condition and context, reducing the chance of being misled by virtual staging or manipulated views.
- Consumer advocacy groups and regulators: The statute gives a concrete standard to press for transparency and to use when assessing misleading advertising claims in real estate.
- Competing agents who avoid deceptive practices: Agents who already publish faithful images benefit competitively because disclosures make altered listings more visible to consumers, leveling marketing practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Brokers and individual salespersons: They must change workflows to preserve originals, add disclosures, and maintain public hosting or link infrastructure, which creates time and expense—especially for small firms without IT support.
- MLS operators and listing platforms: Platforms will need to modify listing schemas and interfaces to display disclosures and host or link to originals, and to manage potential increases in storage, bandwidth, and support for QR/link persistence.
- Photographers and virtual‑staging vendors: Vendors who provide edited images may face contract changes, requirements to deliver originals, and potential liability if edits trigger disclosure obligations, driving cost and process changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between consumer transparency and marketing flexibility: the bill advances buyers’ ability to assess listing fidelity, but it does so by imposing operational burdens—hosting originals, preserving links, and policing third‑party edits—that could raise costs, complicate vendor relationships, and chill creative uses of image technology without clear enforcement or standards to resolve gray areas.
The bill emphasizes disclosure but leaves significant implementation questions unanswered. It does not prescribe a precise standard for “reasonably conspicuous,” nor does it specify recordkeeping periods, verification procedures for originals, or penalties and enforcement mechanisms; those gaps mean private parties, platforms, and regulators will have to develop operational rules and dispute‑resolution practices.
The allowance to satisfy online posting requirements by linking to originals solves hosting inflexibility but creates risks around link rot, broken QR codes, and cross‑domain hosting where content is taken down or moved. Parties will need policies for persistence and archival of originals.
The broad definition—covering images created “by or at the direction of” a broker or agent—captures many third‑party vendors but also raises allocation questions: how will responsibility be shared between an agent who commissions edits and the vendor who performs them? The exception for routine adjustments hinges on whether an edit “changes the representation of the real property,” a subjective test likely to generate disputes about borderline edits (aggressive lighting changes, virtual staging that merely swaps furniture but alters perceived space, or AI‑generated additional views).
Finally, posting unaltered images publicly can conflict with privacy or copyright concerns (neighboring windows, identifiable persons, or photographer IP), so firms must balance transparency with other legal obligations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.