New York AI Synthetic Performer Ad Law Explained

New York's AI Synthetic Performer Disclosure Law, Explained

New York General Business Law section 396-b now requires a person in the business of dealing in property or services to conspicuously disclose when that person knowingly creates or produces a commercial advertisement containing a synthetic performer. The law does not require the same label for every use of AI in advertising.

Its definition is narrower. It focuses on a computer-created or modified asset intended to appear as a visual or audiovisual performance by a human performer who is not recognizable as an identifiable natural performer.

Jurisdiction: New York. Current-law review: July 27, 2026. This explainer is not legal advice.

The law took effect in June 2026

The New York Legislature's record for Senate Bill S8420A shows that the governor signed chapter 617 on December 11, 2025. The act specified that it would take effect 180 days after becoming law.

On June 9, 2026, the governor's office announced that the synthetic-performer advertising disclosure law was in effect. The current controlling public text is General Business Law section 396-b.

The timing matters because E103 was recorded while the rule was still being discussed as a future requirement. The final enacted and codified text now controls.

The definition has several parts

The statute defines a synthetic performer as a digitally created asset that was created, reproduced, or modified by computer using generative AI or another software algorithm. The asset must be intended to create the impression of a visual or audiovisual performance by a human performer. That performer is not recognizable as an identifiable natural performer.

This definition does not simply say "any AI-generated person." It combines the method, the intended impression, the type of performance, and the non-identifiable nature of the performer.

An AI tool used only to clean a background, resize an image, correct color, or write copy does not automatically create a synthetic performer. A campaign featuring a modified image of a recognizable real person also raises other likeness, contract, and digital-replica questions that this definition does not resolve.

The person creating the ad carries the disclosure duty

Subdivision 3 applies to a person engaged in the business of dealing in property or services who, for a commercial purpose, produces or creates an advertisement about that property or service. The duty applies when the person has actual knowledge that the advertisement contains a synthetic performer.

The required disclosure must be conspicuous and appear in the advertisement. The statutory text does not prescribe one universal sentence, font size, duration, or placement.

That means the word "conspicuous" will need to be applied to the real medium and presentation. A label that is technically present but unreadable, fleeting, obscured, or separated from the asset may not accomplish the statutory purpose. Campaign counsel should review the final execution and distribution context.

flowchart TD
    A["Commercial advertisement for property or services"] --> B{"Created or produced by the business with actual knowledge?"}
    B -->|No| C["This subdivision may not assign the creator duty"]
    B -->|Yes| D{"Contains a statutory synthetic performer?"}
    D -->|No| E["No disclosure duty under this specific synthetic-performer rule"]
    D -->|Yes| F{"Expressive-work, audio-only, or translation exception?"}
    F -->|Yes| G["Specific exception may apply"]
    F -->|No| H["Conspicuous disclosure in the advertisement"]

The diagram is a reading aid, not a legal determination.

The law excludes audio advertisements

Subdivision 7 says the section does not apply to audio advertisements. This is an express exception in the current text.

That result can feel counterintuitive because the definition refers to audiovisual and visual performance, not audio-only performance. The explicit exception removes any remaining doubt for audio advertisements under this section.

Other laws, contracts, platform rules, or deception principles may still apply to synthetic voices. The exception is not a universal permission.

AI used only for language translation is also excluded

The same subdivision excludes advertisements and promotional materials where AI is used solely for language translation of a human performer.

"Solely" is important. If the system also creates or materially changes a performer beyond translation, the exception may not fit. Teams should preserve the original asset, translated output, tool record, and review history so they can explain what changed.

Expressive-work promotions have a separate exception

Subdivision 4 excludes advertisements and promotional materials for expressive works, including motion pictures, television programs, streaming content, documentaries, video games, and similar audiovisual works, when the synthetic performer is used consistently with the performer's use in the expressive work.

A trailer showing a synthetic character as that character appears in the work may fit the exception. Using the character differently to endorse an unrelated product presents a different question.

The exception is tied to consistency with the expressive work, not simply to the advertiser's industry.

Publishers and media are treated differently

Subdivision 8 says the section does not apply to the advertising medium that publishes or disseminates the advertisement. The text gives examples such as newspapers, magazines, television networks and stations, streaming services, cable systems, billboards, and transit advertising.

This distinction separates the person who produces or creates the covered advertisement from the medium that distributes it. Actual roles can be more complicated when a platform, agency, publisher, or network also participates in creation. Contracts and campaign facts still matter.

Subdivision 6 also says the law does not limit or enlarge the protections provided by 47 U.S.C. section 230 for content supplied by another information content provider.

Penalties are stated in the statute

A violation of subdivision 3 carries a civil penalty of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for a subsequent violation. The text does not say that paying the penalty resolves other possible claims.

Subdivision 5 expressly says the section does not limit, reduce, or enlarge rights under sections 50, 50-f, or 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law or under other law. In practice, a campaign may need separate analysis of publicity, digital replicas, contracts, copyright, trademark, privacy, consumer protection, and platform requirements.

The law is not a universal AI-ad label

The New York rule should not be summarized as "all AI ads need disclosure." The statute requires a specific combination: a covered business creator, commercial purpose, an advertisement for property or services, actual knowledge, and a synthetic performer within the defined meaning, without an applicable exception.

Broader disclosure may still be appropriate under another law, platform policy, endorsement rule, or the campaign's own transparency standard. That is a separate conclusion and should be labeled as such.

The FTC's advertising guidance remains relevant to the overall impression and substantiation of advertising. A New York synthetic-performer label does not make a false product claim truthful.

A campaign review should preserve the evidence

Before release, the team should identify who created the asset and advertisement, whether the use is commercial, which jurisdictions will receive it, how the person or likeness was created or modified, whether a recognizable natural performer is involved, what the advertiser actually knows, whether an exception is being used, and where the disclosure appears.

The final asset, disclosure, tool history, source rights, approvals, and distribution record should remain connected. If a platform crops, compresses, or reformats the creative, the team should confirm that the disclosure stays conspicuous.

For the operating workflow around these decisions, continue to [[How to Build an AI-First Creative Operation Without Losing Accountability]]. [[E093 Content Plan|Episode 93]] is the deeper Venture Step package on synthetic media and provenance. [[E082 Content Plan|Episode 82]] covers AI image editing, while [[E028 Content Plan|episode 28]] examines governance for AI personas representing creators or brands.

Sources and editorial notes

This explainer relies on the current codified section 396-b, the enacted bill record, and the governor's official effective-date announcement. It does not decide whether a particular advertisement, creator, performer, edit, platform, or distribution plan is covered. Legal review should use the current text, facts, and any later guidance or enforcement.

AI assisted with research organization, structure, drafting, and validation. Dalton Anderson remains the attributed author and final editorial authority. The transcript and linked public sources control factual claims. Publication remains unauthorized.