California SB 683: Privacy and Protection of Personal Likeness
SB 683 went into effect in California as of January 1, 2026. This bill strengthens and expands upon the state’s Right of Publicity statute found at Civil Code §3344. Under these amendments, individuals have a greater ability to protect their names, images, voices, and likenesses from unauthorized use.
The Right of Publicity statute or §3344 applies to any individual or business that knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness without their prior consent in advertising, selling, or promoting products or services. This section broadly defines “photograph” and expressly states that a “voice” or “likeness” includes digital replicas.
Not all commercial coverage is included in the need for consent. Furthermore, §3344 is inapplicable to the use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, if used in conjunction with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or political campaigns. Media owners and their employees used for advertising have no liability under §3344 absent actual knowledge of unauthorized use of another name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.
Under the previous §3344, persons who experienced unauthorized use of their names, images, or likenesses on merchandise and/or in advertising could sue for monetary relief. This type of relief includes statutory or actual damages, profits from the usage, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
SB 683 adds to those remedies by clarifying that people can also seek temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions as per California Code of Civil Procedure §527. When a court grants a TRO, the defendant must “remove, recall, or otherwise cease” the unauthorized publication or distribution of the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness within two business days after service of the order, unless otherwise stated in the court’s order.
Although courts already had the power to issue injunctive relief under general civil procedure laws based on a showing of irreparable harm, §3344 did not explicitly outline this remedy for right of publicity claims. The previous version of §3344 also did not establish any timeline for compliance with TROs. Therefore, the explicit addition of this remedy provides those with right of publicity claims with a more efficient and streamlined means of mitigating the ongoing harm they have alleged.
The enactment of SB 683 is one of several recent developments in California’s right of publicity laws. For example, in September 2024, California enacted AB 2602 and AB 1836, which sought to modernize the state’s right-of-publicity laws in light of technological advances. More specifically, AB 2602 bans the enforcement of overly broad contract clauses allowing for the creation or use of AI-generated digital replicas of one’s name, image, or likeness that otherwise would be in person. The only exception is if an individual consents to this type of contract clause through representation by legal counsel or a labor union.
Likewise, AB 1836 amended §3344 to strengthen the rights of deceased individuals by addressing post-mortem digital replicas. Under this provision, the estates of deceased individuals may control the use of digital replicas. Estates also have the authority to sue for damages arising from names, images, or likenesses generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How does SB 683 affect businesses that use influencer content or customer photos in marketing?
SB 683 raises the stakes for any business that relies on real people’s names, images, or voices to promote products or services. Even informal uses—such as reposting a customer’s photo or featuring an influencer’s likeness in an ad—require clear, documented consent. Because the law expressly covers digital replicas, businesses must also ensure that AI‑generated images or voiceovers do not unintentionally mimic a real person. Implementing written release forms and reviewing marketing workflows can help prevent costly disputes.
Does SB 683 change how quickly someone can stop unauthorized use of their likeness?
Yes. While monetary damages were already available under §3344, SB 683 explicitly confirms that individuals can seek temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to halt ongoing misuse. As a result of this change, a person can act quickly to stop the distribution of unauthorized images, digital replicas, or promotional materials rather than waiting for a full lawsuit to conclude. The statute also sets a short compliance window, making swift legal action more effective than before.
How do the recent updates interact with AI‑generated content and digital replicas?
California’s recent legislative updates—including SB 683, AB 2602, and AB 1836—work together to address the growing use of AI in creating realistic digital likenesses. These laws restrict the creation and use of AI‑generated replicas without informed consent and give both living individuals and the estates of deceased persons stronger control over how their identities are used. Businesses using AI tools must now evaluate whether their content could resemble a real person and ensure that any likeness is either licensed, authorized, or entirely fictional.
Protect Your Organization’s Long‑Term Strength
Staying compliant isn’t simply about meeting legal obligations—it’s what helps your charity operate with integrity, stability, and the confidence of those you serve. California’s nonprofit laws can be complex, but you don’t have to interpret them on your own. The California Center for Nonprofit Law offers clear, actionable guidance so you can stay focused on the mission that matters most.
For tailored support, call (949) 892‑1221, email info@NPOlawyers.com, or connect with us online to keep your organization strong, compliant, and positioned to make a meaningful impact.