<\/p>\n
New York has become the first US state to implement laws requiring transparency in AI advertising and protection of deceased performers’ likenesses, prompting a federal challenge from President Trump amid a rising policy battle over AI governance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
New York has moved to the front of U.S. state efforts to police generative artificial intelligence, passing twin laws that for the first time force advertisers to disclose when \u201csynthetic AI performers\u201d are used in commercials and bar the use of deceased performers\u2019 likenesses without estate consent. According to the original report, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the measures at SAG-AFTRA\u2019s New York headquarters on December 11, 2025. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Legislation S.8420-A\/A.8887-B requires advertisers to \u201cconspicuously disclose\u201d when synthetic AI performers appear, while S.8391\/A.8882 prohibits using a dead performer\u2019s likeness without estate consent. \u201cBy signing these bills today, we are enacting common-sense laws that will ensure we are fully transparent when using images generated by artificial intelligence,\u201d Hochul said in a statement. The bills were backed by SAG-AFTRA and framed as protections for performers in New York\u2019s large film and television industry. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The union hailed the measures as the product of bargaining and advocacy that began with its 2023 strike settlement with studios. SAG-AFTRA\u2019s national leadership described the protections as \u201cthe direct result of artists, lawmakers and advocates coming together to confront the very real and immediate risks posed by unchecked A.I. use,\u201d reflecting the union\u2019s sustained effort, also visible in earlier California legislation and in federal proposals such as the bipartisan \u201cNo Fakes Act\u201d, to secure consent and compensation around digital replicas. Industry data and past settlements show the issue has become central to labour negotiations in entertainment. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The state action arrives on the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to challenge state AI laws on federal pre-emption grounds and creating an AI Litigation Task Force to identify laws the administration views as conflicting with a national policy. \u201cMy administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard, not 50 discordant State ones,\u201d Trump wrote in the order. Legal experts told reporters the tactic will face significant courtroom tests because the Constitution gives states broad authority to legislate where federal law is silent. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The order also expressly threatens to withhold federal funding from states whose AI rules the administration deems \u201conerous,\u201d pointing to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) programme as leverage. The administration empowered cabinet officials to review state laws and link compliance to eligibility for multibillion-dollar broadband funds; Reuters reported that the Commerce Secretary would be authorised to evaluate state AI rules and could cut access to a $42 billion broadband fund for non\u2011compliant states. That threat sets up a high\u2011stakes fiscal lever in what is rapidly becoming a federal\u2013state regulatory showdown. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Tech executives and legal observers are divided. Researchers warned that removing an individual\u2019s likeness from models is \u201cextremely difficult\u201d once training pipelines exist, a limitation cited by one AI startup co\u2011founder as the reason firms such as Adobe choose licensed datasets. \u201cEven so, deepfake content will continue to circulate on social media and other lightly regulated channels,\u201d the researcher said, noting the law\u2019s greatest immediate bite will be on large advertisers and creative firms that will become \u201cfar more cautious about using generative AI.\u201d At the same time, corporate leaders including Anthropic\u2019s chief executive have argued against blunt federal moratoria on state action, saying a decade\u2011long ban on state regulation would be \u201ctoo blunt\u201d and could create dangerous gaps without a substitute national transparency standard. Dozens of state attorneys\u2011general have likewise urged Congress not to block state rules, warning of \u201cdisastrous consequences\u201d if states lack tools to protect residents. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n New York\u2019s new requirements come amid a patchwork of state experiments: other states have pursued disclosure and safety regimes ranging from algorithmic pricing transparency to criminal restrictions on certain AI uses, and California has enacted broad transparency and safety mandates due to take effect in 2026. The result is an accelerating policy contest between state legislatures seeking to protect consumers, workers and civil\u2011rights outcomes, and a federal administration pushing for a single, less burdensome national standard , a contest that will likely be litigated and negotiated in Congress and the courts in the months ahead. [2]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n ##Reference Map:<\/p>\n\ud83d\udccc Reference Map:<\/h3>\n
\n