SB11 adds to California’s right-of-publicity framework by making it unlawful to knowingly use another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without prior consent, and explicitly covers “digital replicas.” The bill creates both money damages (the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus attributable profits) and injunctive remedies, and authorizes prevailing parties to recover attorney’s fees.
For compliance officers, platforms, advertisers, and developers of AI-generated content, the bill tightens the legal regime around monetized uses of identity and establishes a short clock for court-ordered removals. The combination of statutory damages, profit disgorgement rules, and a two-business-day removal requirement creates operational and evidentiary demands that businesses must address proactively.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB11 makes prior consent required for commercial uses of an individual’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness — expressly including digital replicas — and authorizes civil liability. Remedies include statutory damages (floor of $750), actual damages, attributable profits, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, plus injunctive relief with an expedited removal deadline.
Who It Affects
AI developers and vendors that generate or sell synthetic voices/images, advertisers and brands that use identity-based content, platforms that host or distribute commercial content, talent representatives and estates, and minors (who require guardian consent).
Why It Matters
The bill draws a clear legal line for commercial exploitation of identity in the age of synthetic media, imposes fast takedown obligations tied to court orders, and shifts evidentiary burdens for proving profits — all of which change risk calculations for monetizing AI-generated likenesses and for platform moderation policies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB11 prohibits knowingly using another person’s identifying attributes — name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness — in products, merchandise, goods, or for advertising and solicitation, without that person’s prior consent. If the person is a minor, the bill requires consent from a parent or legal guardian.
The statute treats digital replicas as included within the scope of voice or likeness, linking this section to a separate definition in Section 3344.1.
If someone violates the rule, the injured party can recover the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus any profits attributable to the unauthorized use that the plaintiff proves by showing gross revenue tied to the use. The defendant may offset those profits by proving deductible expenses.
The statute also allows punitive damages where appropriate, and gives the prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs.Beyond money relief, SB11 authorizes plaintiffs to obtain injunctions or temporary restraining orders under California’s Code of Civil Procedure Section 527. If a court issues an order requiring removal, recall, or cessation of distribution, the respondent must comply — completing removal or recall within two business days of service unless the order says otherwise.
That creates a very short operational window to act on court-directed takedowns.The bill defines “photograph” broadly to include still and moving images, videotape, and live transmissions, and uses a “readily identifiable” standard: a viewer with the naked eye must be able to reasonably determine the person depicted is the plaintiff. Where a photo shows multiple people, the statute treats a claim as individual only if the person is singled out rather than being merely part of a definable group (examples given include crowds, audiences, or teams).
SB11 also carves out exceptions: uses in news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, or political campaigns are not covered, and commercial sponsorship alone does not automatically trigger liability — the connection to sponsorship is a question of fact. Finally, owners or employees of advertising media are insulated from liability unless they had knowledge of the unauthorized use.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute creates a statutory-damages floor of $750 per unauthorized commercial use, but allows recovery of actual damages if higher.
Plaintiffs may recover profits 'attributable to the unauthorized use' by proving only gross revenue tied to the use; defendants carry the burden to prove deductible expenses.
A court-ordered removal, recall, or cessation must be completed by the respondent within two business days of service unless the court order specifies otherwise.
The law treats 'photograph' to include stills, moving images, videotape, and live television, and requires that the person be 'readily identifiable' to sustain a claim.
Media outlets and advertising owners are immune from liability unless the plaintiff shows they had knowledge of the unauthorized use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Substantive prohibition and money remedies
This subsection states the core prohibition: knowingly using another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without prior consent. It sets the default monetary remedy as the greater of $750 or actual damages and authorizes recovery of profits attributable to the unauthorized use. Practically, this creates both a statutory damages backstop for smaller or hard-to-value harms and a profits-disgorgement pathway that requires allocation of revenue to the offending use.
Proof rules for profits and fees
The provision shifts evidentiary burdens: plaintiffs need only show gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use; defendants must then prove their deductible expenses. This lowers the plaintiff’s bar for obtaining disgorgement while forcing defendants to maintain accounting records that can separate attributable income and costs.
Injunctive relief and expedited removal
SB11 incorporates injunctive relief under CCP §527 and adds a strict compliance timeline: if a court orders removal or recall, the respondent must complete it within two business days of service unless the order states otherwise. That timeline imposes immediate operational obligations on platforms, distributors, and advertisers that receive such orders and raises practical questions about cross-border content and automated removal capabilities.
Definition of 'photograph' and 'readily identifiable' standard
The bill defines 'photograph' to include still and moving photographic reproductions, videotape, and live transmissions, and sets a 'readily identifiable' test based on what an observer can reasonably determine with the naked eye. It further explains when a person is treated as an individual versus merely a member of a definable group — an important limitation limiting mass-capture claims but leaving borderline cases (e.g., singled-out individuals in crowd shots) to fact-finders.
News/political exceptions and media immunity
SB11 excludes uses in news, public affairs, sports accounts, and political campaigns from the consent requirement, and clarifies that commercial sponsorship alone doesn't automatically create liability. It also shields owners and employees of advertising media from liability unless they had knowledge of the unauthorized use, which narrows direct exposure for distributors but preserves causes of action against actors closer to the creative or commercial decision to use the identity.
Digital replicas included and cumulative remedies
The statute explicitly states that 'voice or likeness' includes a 'digital replica' as defined elsewhere (Section 3344.1) and confirms that its remedies are cumulative. That ties this section to technical definitions for synthetic likenesses and makes clear that plaintiffs can pursue these remedies alongside any other legal claims they might have.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy 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
- Individuals whose images or voices are used commercially without consent — they gain a clear private right of action, a statutory damages floor, and access to disgorgement of profits tied to the use.
- Parents and legal guardians of minors — the statute requires guardian consent for minors, giving families legal leverage against unauthorized commercial exploitation of children's likenesses.
- Talent representatives and rights managers — the availability of statutory damages and attorney’s fees strengthens negotiating position for licensing and enforcement.
- Plaintiff-side attorneys and privacy litigators — the statutory damages floor, fee-shifting for prevailing parties, and disgorgement mechanism create a more predictable litigation economy for such claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- AI developers and vendors that produce synthetic images or voices — they face licensing obligations, potential liability for model outputs, and the need to document consent workflows for training and commercial uses.
- Advertisers, brands, and content licensors — they must verify consent before using identity-based assets and may incur higher licensing costs or risk disgorgement of campaign profits.
- Platforms and hosting services — while given some immunity, platforms will still shoulder operational costs for rapid compliance with court-ordered removals and will need robust notice-and-takedown processes to avoid business disruption.
- Small publishers and indie creators — uncertainty about when a use crosses the line (especially in sponsored content or borderline news/commercial mixes) may increase legal exposure and compliance burdens for smaller actors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing protection against commercial exploitation of identity, including synthetic replicas, with preserving legitimate speech, news/political uses, and workable business operations: the bill strengthens individual control and provides quick remedies but imposes burdens and uncertainty on AI developers, platforms, and advertisers that may chill lawful or ambiguous uses.
SB11 raises practical and doctrinal questions that will shape how it works on the ground. First, the statute hinges on a 'knowing' use standard and an explicit inclusion of 'digital replicas,' but it does not define the contours of who 'uses' an AI-generated likeness when a model autonomously produces content.
Is the model developer liable, the user who prompted the model, or the distributor? That allocation will determine which actors must implement consent checks and recordkeeping.
Second, the two-business-day compliance requirement for court-ordered removals is operationally demanding. Large platforms may be able to automate takedowns, but smaller vendors and cross-border hosts will face enforcement and jurisdictional friction.
Courts will have to balance speedy relief against due-process concerns and the realities of content distribution chains. Finally, the profits-recovery rule — where plaintiffs show gross revenue and defendants prove deductible expenses — simplifies plaintiffs' initial proof burden but invites complex accounting disputes about how to attribute revenue to a particular use, especially when content is part of larger campaigns or bundled product offerings.
These allocation challenges could produce costly discovery and inconsistent awards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.