What SB 11 does
An act to add Chapter 22.6 (commencing with Section 22650) to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to amend Section 3344 of the Civil Code, to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 1425) to Chapter 1 of Division 11 of the Evidence Code, and to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 540) to Title 13 of Part 1 of the Penal Code, relating to artificial intelligence technology.
(1)Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either their personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified.
This bill would define various terms related to artificial intelligence and digital replication, and would clarify that false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another for purposes of these and other criminal provisions.
(2)Existing law creates a civil cause of action against any person who knowingly uses the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of another person, without their consent, for specified purposes. When a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in an advertisement or other publication is incidental and not essential to the purpose of the publication, existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that failure to obtain the consent of an employee was not a knowing use of an employee’s photograph or likeness.
This bill would clarify that, for purposes of this cause of action, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined. The bill would also remove the provisions establishing the rebuttable presumption when an employee’s likeness or photograph appears in an advertisement or other publication.
(3)Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. Existing law prescribes procedures for the authentication of photographs and audio and video recordings.
This bill would require the Judicial Council, by no later than January 1, 2027, to review the impact of artificial intelligence on the admissibility of proffered evidence in court proceedings and develop any necessary rules of court to assist courts in assessing claims that proffered evidence has been generated by or manipulated by artificial intelligence and determining whether such evidence is admissible.
(4)Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law, establishes a statutory cause of action for unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and establishes remedies and penalties in that regard, including civil penalties.
This bill would require, by December 1, 2026, and except as provided, any person or entity that makes available to consumers any artificial intelligence technology that enables a user to create a digital replica, as defined, to provide a consumer warning that unlawful use of the technology to depict another person without prior consent may result in civil or criminal liability for the user. The bill would require the warning to be hyperlinked on any page or screen where the consumer may input a prompt to the technology and included in the terms and conditions for use of the technology. The bill would also impose a civil penalty for violations of the requirement.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3344 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 683 to be operative only if this bill and SB 683 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Summary from the Legislative Counsel's Digest of the enrolled text, September 17, 2025. Read the full text on leginfo.
How it got here
Senator Ashby introduced SB 11 on December 2, 2024. The text was amended 8 times, 5 in the Assembly and 3 in the Senate, and heard in 9 committee hearings before its final floor votes.
- Senate Floor, June 2, 2025: 38 ayes, 0 noes.
- Assembly Floor, September 12, 2025: 79 ayes, 0 noes.
- Senate Floor, September 13, 2025: 37 ayes, 0 noes.
Committee votes along the way:
- Senate Judiciary, April 1, 2025: Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety], 12-0.
- Senate Public Safety, April 22, 2025: Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations], 6-0.
- Senate Appropriations, May 5, 2025: Placed on suspense file, 7-0.
- Senate Appropriations, May 23, 2025: Do pass as amended, 6-0.
- Assembly Judiciary, June 17, 2025: Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety], 11-0.
- Assembly Public Safety, July 1, 2025: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection], 9-0.
- Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection, July 16, 2025: Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations], 15-0.
- Assembly Appropriations, August 29, 2025: Do pass as amended., 11-0.
Who supports and opposes SB 11
The Senate Floor Analyses analysis dated October 15, 2025 lists 10 organizations in support and 7 in opposition. When Senate Judiciary first listed positions on March 28, 2025, the count was 4 in support and 7 opposed. By the Senate Floor Analyses analysis of October 15, 2025 it was 10 to 7.
In support: California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California District Attorneys Association; Chamber of Progress; Common Sense Media; Los Angeles County Democratic Party; National AI Youth Council; Recording Industry Association of America; SAG-AFTRA; and 2 more.
Opposed: Association of National Advertisers; California Chamber of Commerce; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Computer and Communications Industry Association; Network Advertising Initiative; Software Information Industry Association; Technet.
Read the Senate Floor Analyses analysis.
Our read
Analysis by Capitol Axis, drawn from the committee analyses and vote record for SB 11.
Among the positions on the record is California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in support.
The 10 organizations in support include California Civil Liberties Advocacy, California District Attorneys Association and Chamber of Progress.
The text went through 8 amendments, 3 of them in the second house, the last on September 3, 2025. The introduced version is not the one that will be signed.
What happens next
The Governor vetoed it, with the last recorded action on March 2, 2026.
The Governor can sign the bill, veto it, or let it become law without a signature. Until the decision, sign and veto request letters are the remaining channel, and the Department of Finance's enrolled bill report carries weight on anything with a fiscal effect. If signed, most provisions take effect January 1, and implementation moves to the agencies named in the bill.
What it means for AI organizations
A vetoed bill usually returns. The veto message is the clearest statement of what a successor would have to change, and the interval before it is reintroduced is when that language gets negotiated.
The AI group at Capitol Axis handles that for AI clients.
Questions about SB 11
What does SB 11 do?
This bill would define various terms related to artificial intelligence and digital replication, and would clarify that false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another for purposes of these and other criminal provisions.
Has SB 11 passed the California Legislature?
The Governor vetoed it, with the last recorded action on March 2, 2026.
Who supports and opposes SB 11?
The Senate Floor Analyses analysis dated October 15, 2025 lists 10 organizations in support and 7 in opposition. Supporters include California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California District Attorneys Association; Chamber of Progress. Opponents include Association of National Advertisers; California Chamber of Commerce; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.
What happens next with SB 11?
A veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses, which is rare. The usual path is a successor bill in the next session, and the veto message is the clearest guide to what that bill would have to change.