New York has enacted a new law requiring disclosures in certain advertising contexts involving artificial intelligence (AI) and human likenesses. On Dec. 11, 2025, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the legislation into law; it is scheduled to take effect 180 days after signing. 

The law requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure when an advertisement uses a “synthetic performer," 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 statute does not regulate the use of AI in advertising generally or require disclosures for all AI-generated imagery. Instead, the disclosure obligation is triggered only when a synthetic performer is used in the advertisement.

The statute’s choice of terminology is notable, using the term “synthetic performer” rather than “digital replica.” The definition of “synthetic performer” closely tracks the SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract, which focuses on whether the audience is presented with what appears to be a human performer delivering a performance.

By contrast, the SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract and other New York AI laws also expressly define and use the term “digital replica,” often in connection with consent, compensation or control over the use of a real person’s likeness. The fact that the New York advertising disclosure law does not adopt that terminology suggests an intentional choice to narrow its scope, focusing on the potential deception of framing a person as real when they are, in fact, fully simulated and not based on a real person, as opposed to more broadly applying to all AI-generated or modified performances.

Read this way, the law does not appear intended to apply to all digital humans, AI-generated images or digitally modified likenesses used in advertising. For example, it does not apply to characters that are not intended to represent a human — cartoon characters, animals, fantastical representations and the like. 

The law also does not appear to apply simply because AI tools are used somewhere in the production process. Routine editing or enhancement of footage of a person who actually performed, such as color correction, lighting adjustments, cropping, resizing, background cleanup, noise reduction or basic retouching, would generally not be understood as creating a synthetic performer. 

That said, the line between a true synthetic performer and a substantially revised real performance is not always clear. In practice, there may be gray areas where AI is used to significantly alter an existing human performance in ways that go beyond traditional editing but render the performer unrecognizable. How these uses will be treated under the law remains uncertain and will likely be shaped through future regulatory guidance, enforcement decisions and judicial interpretation.

These interpretive questions may be especially relevant for promotional materials relating to entertainment properties and creators. The statute includes an exception for expressive works, such as films, television programs and video games, where synthetic performers are part of the narrative work itself. Promotional materials that simply replicate or excerpt the expressive work in which a synthetic performer appears may fall within that exception. By contrast, advertising that uses a synthetic performer solely to promote a creative property, where that synthetic performer does not actually appear in the expressive work itself, may raise different questions under the statute.

Related issues may also arise where an advertiser creates branded content with creative or entertainment elements. In those cases, the analysis may turn on whether the content is properly characterized as an expressive work within the scope of the statutory exception, or as advertising primarily promoting a brand, product or service. 

Although often discussed as a New York issue, the law is not limited to ads produced in New York or by New York-based advertisers. As a state consumer protection measure, it appears intended to apply to advertising that is aired, displayed or otherwise distributed in New York State, regardless of where the ad was created, so long as New Yorkers can view it.

The timing of the law’s enactment is also notable. Governor Hochul signed the bill on the same day the White House issued an executive order aimed at reducing what the administration characterizes as state-law obstacles to a unified national AI policy. While federal officials have expressed interest in national standards, experience in other areas such as privacy law suggests that achieving comprehensive federal legislation may be challenging. In the absence of federal action, and subject to federal challenges, state laws like New York’s may effectively shape marketing practices on a nationwide basis for companies operating at scale. 

For advertisers, agencies, brands and creators, the key takeaway at this stage is caution and preparation rather than certainty. The New York law does not prohibit AI in advertising and does not apply to all digital humans or AI-generated content. It focuses narrowly on the use of synthetic performers that purport to be human and are not recognizable as identifiable natural performers. Additionally, as advertisers prepare for compliance, they should consider whether meeting the New York disclosure requirement also satisfies other disclosures potentially required under the Federal Trade Commission's  framework if the content features endorsements and testimonials by the synthetic performer.