SB 1142: Digital Dignity Act.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either that person’s personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. Existing law protects all people from defamation, including libel and slander, as provided. Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes, as specified, without that person’s prior consent liable for damages, as specified. Existing law provides that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures.

This bill would enact the Digital Dignity Act. The act would subject to specified liability a person who, by distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica, is found guilty of violating a criminal provision for which false impersonation of another is a required element, as prescribed, or is found liable in a civil action arising from the use or portrayal through a digital replica, as provided.

The Digital Dignity Act would require a large online platform that includes a generative AI tool, as defined, that provides users with the functionality to create a digital replica of other individuals to provide a mechanism for individuals to report content that violates the platform’s terms of service or a provision of law relating to the individual’s digital replica and to submit to the large online platform any certified court order or judgment ordering the removal of any content involving the individual’s digital replica on the platform or finding that content involving the individual’s digital replica was defamatory, fraudulent, or any other form of image appropriation not permitted by law, as prescribed. Upon receipt of the court order or judgment, the act would require the large online platform to remove the digital replica and make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies. The act would authorize a city attorney or the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to seek a specified civil penalty and injunctive relief. The act would require a generative AI tool provider to maintain, for no less than 90 days, records sufficient to allow compliance with a court order issued pursuant to a civil action by the city attorney or Attorney General, as prescribed.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. May 14, 2026May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2. May 12, 2026Set for hearing May 14.
3. May 11, 2026May 11 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
4. May 4, 2026Set for hearing May 11.
5. April 23, 2026Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
6. April 22, 2026From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 3978.) (April 21).
7. April 10, 2026Set for hearing April 21.
8. April 8, 2026Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
9. April 7, 2026From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3742.) (April 6).
10. March 23, 2026From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P., D.T., & C.P.
11. March 10, 2026Set for hearing April 6.
12. February 26, 2026Referred to Coms. on P., D.T., & C.P. and JUD.