Advertisement claims: health-related consumer products and services: digital replicas and synthetic performers.

A new provision was added stating that a violation of the section constitutes a violation of Section 17500 (false advertising) and may be enforced pursuant to Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Business and Professions Code (the Unfair Competition Law). This gives prosecutors an additional legal pathway to pursue violators beyond the new civil action provisions.

The fiscal note changed from 'State-mandated local program: no' to 'yes,' reflecting that the bill now expands the scope of a crime (by tying violations to Section 17500). A new Section 2 was added stating no state reimbursement is required for local agencies because the act changes the definition of a crime.

The definition of 'digital replica' was changed from a simple cross-reference to Civil Code Section 3344.1 to a full inline definition covering computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representations of an individual's voice or visual likeness, with an explicit exclusion for authorized remixing, mastering, and digital remastering by copyrightholders.

A new definition was added for 'generative artificial intelligence,' meaning an AI system that can generate synthetic content (text, images, video, audio) emulating the structure and characteristics of its training data. This term is now used in the 'synthetic performer' definition.

A new definition was added for 'clear and conspicuous disclosure,' requiring it to be difficult to miss, easily understandable, and presented so a reasonable consumer would notice, read, and comprehend it based on the medium, format, and context.

The 'synthetic performer' definition was updated to reference 'generative artificial intelligence' instead of just 'artificial intelligence,' and added language requiring it to create 'the realistic impression of an audiovisual or visual performance of a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural person.'

The private right of action was broadened. Previously only a natural person 'identifiably depicted as a health care provider' whose digital replica was used could sue. Now any 'natural person whose digital replica is used' in a violating advertisement can bring a civil action, regardless of whether they were depicted as a health care provider.

The main operative requirement (subdivision b) was simplified from referencing 'a natural person representing themselves to be, or identifiably depicting a person as, digital replica or synthetic performer' to simply 'includes the image, audio, or video of a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider.' The 'identifiably depicted' concept was removed from the operative text and its standalone definition was deleted.

The bill now explicitly covers advertisements featuring 'digital replicas' (as defined in Civil Code 3344.1) and 'synthetic performers' (newly defined as humanlike digital figures, voices, or representations created using AI that are not based on any particular identifiable natural person) depicted as health care providers.

New definition of 'synthetic performer' added: a humanlike digital figure, voice, or representation created in whole or part using artificial intelligence, machine learning, or computational techniques, and not based on, derived from, or intended to depict any particular identifiable natural person.

New definition of 'creates' added: includes causing a video or audio media to be created through prompts to a generative artificial intelligence system. This broadens who is considered the responsible party for an advertisement.

The required disclosure language changed from 'the person identifiably depicted is not a health care provider' to 'no human health care provider is depicted.' This broader phrasing covers synthetic performers that are not based on any real person at all.

The private right of action was narrowed. Previously any natural person identifiably depicted as a health care provider in a violating advertisement could sue. Now only a natural person whose digital replica is used in the advertisement may bring a civil action.

The exemption in subdivision (e) was restructured to add a new first condition: the natural person whose digital replica is used must be a health care provider. The remaining conditions were updated to reference 'digital replica' language throughout.

The disclosure requirement now applies only to AI-generated or altered images, audio, or video of a person representing themselves to be, or identifiably depicting a person as, a health care provider. The original version applied to any natural person in such advertisements.

New exemption: the section does not apply if the depicted person is licensed in the same professional practice as shown, gave prior consent to use of their image, and agrees with all statements made by the AI-generated version.

New definition of 'health care provider' as a person licensed under the Business and Professions Code division. New definition of 'identifiably depicted' meaning the visual likeness or voice is readily identifiable even if not identical to the actual person.

New factors for determining whether a person is 'identifiably depicted': whether the representation uses the person's name, uses visual or auditory cues commonly associated with them, and whether the ad addresses a subject matter or health issue in which the person specializes.

The definition of 'health-related consumer product or service' was expanded from 'medical goods and services' to 'medical and dental goods and services.'

The required disclosure must now also state that the person identifiably depicted is not a health care provider, in addition to stating the media was AI-generated or substantially altered.

A natural person identifiably depicted as a health care provider in a violating advertisement may now bring a civil action against the creator of the advertisement. Remedies are cumulative and in addition to other remedies including Section 3344 of the Civil Code (right of publicity).

For a licensed person, a violation now constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds for suspension or revocation of a license by the relevant board.

Added explicit reference to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 (the Unfair Competition Law) as an example of other applicable state law that is not abrogated.