This bill makes it unlawful to use another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for advertising, promoting, or selling goods and services without prior consent (parental consent required for minors), and gives injured parties a statutory cause of action. The statute sets a floor damages award (minimum $750 or actual damages, whichever is greater), allows recovery of profits attributable to the unauthorized use, permits punitive damages, and awards attorney fees to the prevailing party.
The statute also authorizes plaintiffs to seek injunctions or temporary restraining orders under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527 and requires respondents to remove or stop distributing the material within two business days after service of such an order. The bill defines “photograph” and “readily identifiable,” creates a rebuttable presumption where an employee’s image is incidental, and preserves narrow exceptions for news, public affairs, sports, and political campaign uses while protecting media outlets from liability absent knowledge of the unauthorized use.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a private right of action for unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, including statutory minimum damages ($750), disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. It also permits expedited injunctions under CCP §527 with a two-business-day removal requirement after service of an order.
Who It Affects
Advertisers, marketers, manufacturers, and anyone using images or recorded voices for commercial promotion; employers who use employee images; media owners and platforms (who receive limited immunity unless they had knowledge); and individuals—adults and minors—whose identities are commercially exploited without consent.
Why It Matters
The bill gives individuals an easier and faster private enforcement route against commercial uses of their identity and creates operational deadlines (two business days) that advertisers and platforms must factor into takedown processes. It also shifts certain evidentiary burdens in profit calculations and establishes specific carve-outs and presumptions that will shape litigation strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of the bill is straightforward: if someone knowingly uses another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness to advertise, sell, or solicit purchases without prior consent, the victim can sue. The statute creates a baseline monetary remedy—either $750 or the actual damages, whichever is greater—and lets courts order recovery of profits tied to the unauthorized use.
Plaintiffs need only show gross revenue attributable to the use; the defendant must then prove deductible expenses to reduce the disgorgement amount. The statute also preserves the possibility of punitive damages and awards attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Beyond money, the bill gives courts injunctive power through the existing mechanism in Code of Civil Procedure Section 527. If a court issues an order calling for removal, recall, or cessation of distribution, the respondent must comply within two business days of service unless the order specifies otherwise.
That creates a tight operational window for takedowns and recalls and makes injunctive relief an immediately enforceable tool for stopping ongoing commercial exploitation.The bill defines a “photograph” broadly to include stills, video, videotape, and live television in which a person is “readily identifiable.” It explains when someone is “readily identifiable,” and it treats people depicted only as part of a larger crowd or definable group differently: a person must be individually represented rather than only a member of a group to bring a claim. For employee images used incidentally in an employer’s ad, the law supplies a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not “knowingly” use the employee’s image, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to overcome that presumption.There are carved-out uses: news, public affairs, sports broadcasts or accounts, and political campaign uses are not subject to the consent requirement.
The statute also says commercial sponsorship or paid advertising does not automatically make a use actionable; instead, courts must assess whether the use was sufficiently connected to the sponsorship or advertising to require consent. Finally, owners or employees of advertising media—newspapers, TV networks, billboards, transit advertisers—are insulated from liability unless they knew about the unauthorized use.
The remedies listed in the statute are cumulative and do not replace other legal remedies available under law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a statutory private right of action for knowingly using another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with promoting or selling goods or services without prior consent.
Damages: the plaintiff is entitled to the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus any profits attributable to the unauthorized use (plaintiff proves gross revenue; defendant proves deductible expenses), and may recover punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
Injunctions: a plaintiff may seek relief under CCP §527; if the court orders removal, the respondent must remove or cease distribution within two business days after service, unless the order states otherwise.
Definitions and limits: “photograph” includes moving images and live transmissions; a person is actionable only if ‘readily identifiable’ and not merely one member of a definable group, and incidental employee images give rise to a rebuttable presumption against knowing use.
Exceptions and immunity: uses for news, public affairs, sports, or political campaigns are exempt, and media owners/employees are not liable unless they had knowledge of the unauthorized use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Private cause of action and damages formula
This subsection creates the substantive offense and the plaintiff’s remedies: statutory minimum damages (at least $750 or actual damages if greater), disgorgement of profits tied to the unauthorized use, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs for the prevailing party. Practically, courts will award the larger of the statutory floor or actual loss and then separately determine profits attributable to the use; plaintiffs need only present gross revenue evidence while defendants carry the burden of proving deductible expenses to lower disgorgement.
Expedited injunctive relief and two-business-day compliance
This subsection permits plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief or temporary restraining orders under CCP §527 and imposes a two-business-day timeline for the respondent to remove or cease distribution after the order is served, unless the court’s order sets a different deadline. The two-day rule is operational: advertisers, platforms, and distributors will need processes to identify service and effect removal quickly or face contempt or other enforcement consequences specified under CCP §527.
Definition of photograph and ‘readily identifiable’ test
The bill defines ‘photograph’ to include still and moving images, videotape, and live transmissions and specifies when someone is ‘readily identifiable’—namely, when a naked-eye viewer can reasonably conclude the person depicted is the claimant. It also clarifies that being part of a larger ‘definable group’ (e.g., a crowd or team) generally bars an individual claim unless the individual is singled out, which will require factual analysis in many cases.
Incidental employee-image presumption
When an employee’s image appears only incidentally in an advertisement produced by or for their employer, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not knowingly use the image. That changes the early evidentiary posture in workplace-related claims: plaintiffs must produce evidence to overcome the presumption before the defendant faces liability based on knowledge.
News/political exceptions, sponsorship connection test, and media immunity
Subdivision (d) exempts news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, and political campaign uses from the consent requirement. Subdivision (e) makes commercial sponsorship or paid advertising insufficient on its own to create liability—courts must examine whether the use was directly connected to the sponsorship. Subdivision (f) shields owners and employees of advertising media from liability—newspapers, networks, cable systems, billboards, and similar media—unless they had knowledge of the unauthorized use, setting a knowledge-based threshold for holding distributors liable.
Cumulative remedies
The statute states that its remedies are cumulative and add to any other available legal remedies. That means plaintiffs might pursue statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and other common-law claims together, subject to usual rules against double recovery applied by courts.
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 names, voices, signatures, photographs, or likenesses are used commercially without consent — they gain an explicit statutory cause of action, a damages floor, potential profit disgorgement, and an expedited route to removal through CCP §527.
- Minors and their parents or guardians — the statute requires prior consent for minors, giving parents a clear enforcement mechanism if a child’s identity is exploited commercially.
- Plaintiffs' attorneys and consumer/privacy advocates — fee-shifting (attorney’s fees for prevailing parties) and the $750 statutory floor make certain low-value cases financially viable, increasing access to counsel for enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Advertisers, marketers, and manufacturers who use photographs, recordings, or signatures in promotional material — they face statutory damages, potential disgorgement of related profits, and faster takedown obligations that will increase compliance costs.
- Media owners, distribution platforms, and ad networks — while insulated unless they had knowledge, they will still invest in notice-and-takedown and recordkeeping protocols to limit exposure and respond within the two-business-day removal window.
- Employers who use images of employees in corporate materials — even incidental use shifts evidentiary burdens and may produce litigation risk if plaintiffs can show the presumption is overcome, prompting employers to revise internal consent policies and release practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance two legitimate aims—protecting individuals from commercial exploitation of their identity and preserving robust news and political speech—by layering statutory remedies and narrow exceptions; the central tension is that stronger, faster private enforcement (statutory damages, profit recovery, rapid takedowns) protects individuals but imposes heavy operational and litigation costs on advertisers, media owners, and platforms and may chill borderline commercial or editorial uses.
The bill mixes objective and subjective standards in ways that will drive litigation over threshold questions. ‘Readily identifiable’ invites a fact-intensive, viewer-based inquiry that could vary significantly across media types and contexts (high-resolution still versus small thumbnail in an online ad). Similarly, the definable-group carve-out depends on whether an individual was ‘singled out,’ a factual determination that courts will have to make early in many cases.
The two-business-day removal mandate for court-ordered takedowns is operationally strict and will pressure distributors and platforms to improve service-of-process tracking and automated removal systems; smaller entities may struggle to comply within that window.
The profit-disgorgement mechanism alters evidence burdens: plaintiffs only must show gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use, while defendants shoulder the task of proving deductible expenses. That design favors plaintiffs in establishing recoverable profits but creates contentious discovery fought over what revenue is ‘attributable’ and which expenses are legitimately deductible.
The knowledge-based immunity for media owners narrows liability exposure but creates an evidentiary battleground on what distributors knew and when. Finally, cumulative remedies and a damages floor plus attorney fees increase the chance that low-value commercial uses will generate economically motivated suits, which raises concerns about opportunistic litigation versus legitimate rights enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.