California AB 2025, chaptered on September 27, 2026, adds Civil Code Section 1940.11, which would require anyone who puts an AI-generated or digitally altered image in a rental advertisement to disclose the alteration and, unless the image was not originally created with a capture device, include the unaltered image

What would Section 1940.11 require in a rental advertisement?

Section 1940.11 sets two duties, each of which would apply once the section is operative; the chaptered text names no date. The core duty sits in subdivision (b)(1): "A person who includes a digitally altered image in an advertisement or other promotional material for rental of real property shall include in the advertisement or promotional material a disclosure that the image has been altered. The disclosure shall be reasonably conspicuous and located on or adjacent to the image."

The second duty concerns the original. Under subdivision (b)(2)(A), again from whenever the section takes effect, the advertisement "shall include the unaltered version of the images from which the digitally altered images were created in the posting". The same subparagraph offers a way to do that without printing both versions side by side: "A person subject to this paragraph may comply with this requirement by including a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible internet website that includes, and clearly identifies, the original, unaltered image."

Choosing the link route adds wording. If the advertiser uses a link, URL or QR code, the disclosure would also need language telling readers the unaltered images can be accessed that way, on the section's text as chaptered and once it applies.

Once operative, the section sets a disclosure duty. Nothing in it prohibits altered or AI-generated images in rental advertising.

Which images count as digitally altered, and which edits are excluded?

The definition in subdivision (a)(2)(A) has two limbs, both of which would apply only once the section is operative. One limb covers an image that "has been fully generated through artificial intelligence software by or at the direction of a person". The other covers an existing image altered by or at the direction of a person, through photo editing software or artificial intelligence, to add, remove or change elements. The statute's non-exhaustive list runs from fixtures, furniture, appliances and flooring to floor plans, views through windows, streetlights, utility poles and neighboring properties.

Ordinary photo work is carved out. Once the definition applies, subdivision (a)(2)(B) says the term "does not include an image where only lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, angle, straightening, cropping, exposure, or other common photo editing adjustments are made that do not change the representation of the real property".

On our reading, a virtually staged living room or a sky replaced with a clear one would sit inside the definition when the section takes effect, and a straightened, color-corrected photo would sit outside it. Those examples are ours; the statute does not use them.

When is the unaltered image not needed?

Subdivision (b)(2)(B), which like the rest of the section has no operative date in the text, limits the original-image duty: "Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an image, architectural rendering, or artistic rendering that was not originally created through the use of a capture device."

That exception reaches only subparagraph (A), the requirement to include the unaltered image. On the text as chaptered, and once it is operative, the disclosure duty in (b)(1) would still apply to a digitally altered image even where no camera original exists, such as an image fully generated by AI.

"Capture device" is not defined in the section itself. For the purposes of the section, once operative, subdivision (a)(1) gives it "the same meaning as defined in Section 22757.1 of the Business and Professions Code". We did not open Section 22757.1, so we do not paraphrase that definition here.

How does this differ from the AB 723 rule for sale listings?

The sale-advertising rule sits in Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8, which our earlier coverage reports as the AB 723 provision for real estate listings. AB 2025 does not name AB 723. Section 1 of AB 2025 reprints Section 10140.8 and adds a subdivision (c), with no operative date stated anywhere in the chaptered text: "This section does not apply to an advertisement or other promotional material for a leasehold exceeding one year's duration."

The Legislative Counsel's Digest explains why that matters. It says existing law defines "sell," "sale," or "sold" for the sale rule to include, among other things, a leasehold exceeding one year's duration. On our reading, the amendment moves advertising for those longer leases out of the sale rule, and Section 1940.11, which states no lease-length limit, would cover rental advertising generally once operative. The text does not say this in one sentence; it is our reading of the two sections together.

Three textual differences stand out, comparing the sale rule with the rental rule as it would apply once operative. Section 10140.8, as reprinted, is addressed to a real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf; Section 1940.11 is addressed to "A person". The sale rule's definition speaks of an image created by or at the direction of the licensee that has been altered, while the rental rule adds the separate limb for images fully generated through AI software. And the sale rule's (a)(1) calls for a statement plus a link, URL or QR code to the original in every case, whereas the rental rule calls for the disclosure plus the unaltered image in the posting, with the link as one way to comply.

Who answers for a violation?

Subdivision (c) of Section 1940.11 addresses licensees: a person licensed under Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code who violates the section "shall be deemed to have violated that person's licensing law". That consequence, like the duties, attaches once the section is operative, and the text gives no date for that.

The Legislative Counsel's Digest says a willful violation of the Real Estate Law is a crime, and that by imposing new requirements on real estate licensees the bill imposes a state-mandated local program. The digest is the Legislature's summary, not the operative text.

For landlords and managers who hold no license, Section 1940.11, whose operative date the text does not give, states no penalty of its own. Subdivision (d) says "This section does not alter or abridge any law pertaining to false or misleading advertising." We do not say which other law, if any, would reach an undisclosed altered image in an unlicensed landlord's advertisement.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the chaptered text of AB 2025 (Chapter 572) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, saved in our evidence folder and converted to plain text by stripping the HTML. We read the approval and filing block, the Legislative Counsel's Digest, Section 1 (Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8 as amended), Section 2 (Civil Code Section 1940.11) and Section 3 on reimbursement.

What we did not open: Business and Professions Code Section 22757.1, which defines "capture device"; the provision of existing law that, per the digest, defines "sell," "sale," or "sold" to include long leaseholds; the bill's committee analyses, votes and history pages; any statement by the author, the Governor or the Department of Real Estate; and the AB 723 chaptered text itself, for which we rely on our earlier coverage.

What we refuse to claim: we do not state an operative date, because the chaptered text states none. Any date taken from California's general rules on when statutes take effect would be a legal inference from outside this text, and we have not made it. We do not say the law bans altered or AI-generated rental images, that unlicensed landlords face a specific penalty under this section, or how "in the posting" applies to print advertising, which the text does not address. We make no claim about how this law compares with rules in other states.

Quotations are copied from the leginfo text with curly quotation marks and apostrophes folded to straight ones. One quotation from subdivision (b)(2)(A) joins words split across a line break in the page source; no words were changed or omitted.

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.

Related briefings

• California AB 723: AI-altered listing photos in sale advertising
• Real estate AI regulation tracker
• North America AI regulation tracker
• California DRE advisory on AI for real estate licensees
• AI Regulation News hub