Skip to content

Menu

Network by SubjectChannelsBlogsHomeAboutContact
AI Legal Journal logo
Subscribe
Search
Close
PublishersBlogsNetwork by SubjectChannels
Subscribe

California and Artificial Intelligence Watermarking Law

By Chuck Hollis (US), Susan Ross (US) & Herwin Jorsling (US) on September 20, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
1727204206-2826304-6017-lxb_photo7iq4VEHLNGUlxb_photo-
vackground.com, Unsplash

On September 19, 2024, California enacted another law relating to artificial intelligence, this time relating to watermarking.  The new law (SB 942) requires  making certain AI detection tools available at no cost to users. The new law does not take effect until January 1, 2026.

AI Detection Tools (SB 942)

This bill, the California AI Transparency Act, will impose a series of obligations on GenAI providers related to the creation of AI content utilizing their systems.  Under the bill, a “Covered provider” means a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative artificial intelligence system that has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within the geographic boundaries of the state.  Covered providers will be required to do the following:

(A) Make available an artificial intelligence (AI) detection tool at no cost to the user that meets certain criteria, including that the tool is publicly accessible.

(B) Offer the user an option to include a manifest disclosure in image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created or altered by the covered provider’s generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) system.  The manifest disclosure should identify content as AI-generated and be clear, conspicuous, appropriate for the medium of the content, and be understandable to a reasonable person. 

(C) Include a latent disclosure in AI-generated image, video, audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created by the covered provider’s GenAI system.  The latent disclosure should to the extent that it is technically feasible and reasonable convey certain information, either directly or through a link to a permanent website regarding the provenance of the content.

(D) If a covered provider knows a third-party licensee modified a licensed GenAI system such that it is no longer capable of including the disclosures described herein in the content the system creates or alters, revoke the license within 96 hours of discovering the licensee’s action.  It would also require a third-party licensee to cease using a licensed GenAI system after the license for the system has been revoked by the covered provider.

SB 942 does not contain a private right of action.  Instead, it makes a covered provider that violates these provisions liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, to be collected in a civil action filed by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel.  For a violation by a third-party licensee of the requirement to cease using a licensed GenAI system after the license of the system has been revoked, the bill authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Photo of Chuck Hollis (US) Chuck Hollis (US)
Read more about Chuck Hollis (US)
Photo of Susan Ross (US) Susan Ross (US)
Read more about Susan Ross (US)
Photo of Herwin Jorsling (US) Herwin Jorsling (US)
Read more about Herwin Jorsling (US)
  • Posted in:
    Featured, Privacy & Data Security
  • Blog:
    Data Protection Report
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog logo
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog. All Rights Reserved.
Legal content Portal by LexBlog LexBlog Logo