AI Regulation Tracker  /  For Real Estate Professionals

NY S9584: AI Video and Immersive Listing Disclosure Rules

A pending New York bill would treat undisclosed AI edits to listing video and virtual tours as deceptive advertising, joining in-force rules in California and Wisconsin.

By Anthony Guerriero  ·  Reviewed by The Leveraged Years Editorial Desk  ·  Published July 1, 2026  ·  Last updated July 1, 2026

New York Senate Bill S9584 is a pending bill, not yet law, that would define a real estate listing's digital representations to include images, video, and immersive media such as virtual tours, and would require clear disclosure of material AI alterations. It treats materially misleading listing media as a deceptive act and false advertising under General Business Law, with license penalties for brokers and salespersons. As of July 1, 2026 it sits in the Senate Judiciary Committee, while California's AB723 and Wisconsin's Act 69 already impose similar disclosure duties.

A listing video shows a smooth drone approach to the house, then glides through the front door and down a bright hallway. It looks like footage. It is not. No drone flew, and the camera never moved. The whole sequence was generated from a handful of still photos. That gap, between what the buyer thinks they are watching and what actually happened, is now the target of a new wave of state rules. New York's S9584 is the clearest signal yet that the disclosure question has moved from photos to full motion video.

Here is the honest framing, because it matters for how you act. S9584 is a pending bill, not law. It sits in the New York Senate Judiciary Committee after clearing the Consumer Protection Committee on April 28, 2026 by a 7 to 0 vote. The in-force anchors are elsewhere: California's rule took effect January 1, 2026, and Wisconsin's takes effect January 1, 2027. Read together, these three tell you where the professional standard is heading, and give you a concrete test you can apply to listing video right now.

What S9584 would actually do

The bill, sponsored by Senator Rachel May, adds a new section 349-i to the General Business Law and amends section 441-c of the Real Property Law. Its core move is definitional. It defines a "digital representation" as any image, video, or interactive or immersive media used to advertise real property, and it names virtual tours specifically. A "virtual tour" is any interactive, panoramic, or simulated walkthrough that represents the layout or spatial relationships of a property. A "material alteration" is a modification that would affect a reasonable consumer's understanding of the property's condition, features, or layout.

With those definitions in place, the bill treats a materially misleading digital representation as an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act under General Business Law section 349 and as false advertising under section 350. In plain terms, it folds AI-altered listing media into consumer protection law that already carries teeth. It also requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure whenever a representation has been materially altered, requires virtual staging to be labeled as digitally added furnishings, and bars adding features that do not exist or hiding known defects without disclosure. Virtual tours get their own accuracy standard: they cannot misrepresent layout, dimensions, or spatial relationships, and any conceptual or AI-generated elements must be labeled as such.

For licensees, the consequence is direct. A violation would count as untrustworthiness or incompetency under Real Property Law section 441-c, which lets the Department of State suspend or revoke a license or impose a fine of up to two thousand dollars. The Attorney General would also have enforcement authority. You can read the full text on the New York State Senate page for S9584.

The in-force anchors: California and Wisconsin

New York is not writing on a blank page. California's Assembly Bill 723, effective January 1, 2026, already requires real estate brokers, salespersons, and those acting for them to disclose when digitally altered images are used and to provide access to original, unaltered versions. It applies when software or AI adds, removes, or changes visible elements such as furniture, appliances, flooring, landscaping, facades, floor plans, window views, or neighboring properties. California draws a sensible line: basic edits like lighting, cropping, sharpening, and color correction are fine as long as they do not change how the property actually looks.

Wisconsin's 2025 Act 69, effective January 1, 2027, reaches further into motion. It requires disclosure when advertising is altered using technology, including AI, in a way that creates a false or misleading impression, and its scope explicitly includes reels, animations, and generated video. That is the same territory S9584 stakes out for New York.

The details differ by state, and they will keep differing. The pattern does not. Three separate legislatures have now decided that AI-assisted listing media crosses a line when it changes what a reasonable buyer would believe. If you market in more than one state, the safe path is to build to the strictest rule, not the loosest.

Why video is a harder problem than photos

A doctored photo is a static claim. A generated video is a claim about experience. When a clip simulates a drone flyover or a walkthrough that was never filmed, the buyer absorbs a sense of scale, flow, and setting that no single photo delivers. The individual frames may even be real. The experience is invented. That is exactly the kind of impression S9584 and Wisconsin's Act 69 are written to catch, because it shapes whether a buyer books a showing, writes an offer, or stretches on price.

This is a workflow and liability question for agents who are experimenting with AI tools to keep up. If you want the wider picture on where AI regulation is landing across professions, our [AI Regulation News desk](/ai-regulation-news/) tracks it, and our [breakdown of California's AB723 photo disclosure rule](/ai-regulation-news/ab723-ai-photo-disclosure-real-estate) covers the still-image side in detail.

A disclosure test you can run before you publish

You do not need any of these bills to pass to protect yourself. Run every AI-assisted listing asset through a five-question test before it goes live. The HousingWire column that mapped this widening regime laid out a similar checklist, and it is worth adopting as a habit.

• Did technology add, remove, or materially change anything about the property? Review the final asset the way a buyer would. If visible features, condition, layout, or surroundings changed, treat it differently from ordinary photo cleanup.
• Does the video show movement or a perspective that was never actually captured? Aerial-style motion, camera transitions, or a walkthrough built from stills all qualify. Say so plainly.
• Could the change affect how a buyer understands the property? Condition, landscaping, views, room size, nearby properties, and signs of damage all carry weight. If the edit could move a decision, disclose it.
• Will the buyer actually see the disclosure? The label has to travel with the media, in the video itself, the caption, or the description. Buyers should not have to hunt for it.
• Can you show what was real and what was changed? Keep the originals, the edited versions, the generated clips, and the exact disclosure language you used. Even where no law demands it, that file is your defense if a question comes up later.

The disclosure does not need legal polish. Plain language works better. A few lines that hold up across states:

• "AI-generated video created from property photographs. No drone or walkthrough footage was captured."
• "Virtually staged. Furniture shown is not included."
• "Image has been digitally altered. Original photo available on request."
• "Drone-style movement is simulated. No drone footage was captured."

What to do this week

Do not wait for the New York vote. Three steps put you ahead of every version of this rule:

1. Write one standing disclosure line for AI-generated video and one for virtual staging, and paste it into every listing template your team uses. 2. Set up a simple archive. For each listing, save the original media, the altered version, and the disclosure text in one folder. That habit satisfies California's access-to-originals requirement today. S9584 does not mandate recordkeeping, but keeping the file is simply good practice and gives you a record if a disclosure is ever questioned. 3. Brief anyone who touches your marketing, including outside vendors and virtual assistants, on the five-question test. Under both S9584 and AB723, the people acting on your behalf can put your license at risk.

Agents who want a structured way to build AI into listing work without tripping these rules can start with our [AI for real estate professionals course](/leveraged-real-estate), or take the [two-minute quiz](/quiz) to find the right track. The tools that make marketing faster are the same tools these laws are aimed at. Using them with judgment is the whole job.

Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker

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