California signed two replica laws the same day, not one

The figure or the record

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed two digital-replica bills on the same day, 17 September 2024, each filed with the Secretary of State that same date. AB 2602, by Assemblymember Kalra, added Labor Code Section 927, reaching living performers' employment contracts. AB 1836, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, amended Civil Code Section 3344.1, the state's deceased-personality right, to add digital replicas by name. Both texts set the substantive change to apply from 1 January 2025, separating the date of enactment from the date the new rules actually bind a contract.

What the documents establish

AB 2602's Section 927 makes a contract clause unenforceable, for a new performance fixed on or after 1 January 2025 by a digital replica, if it lets a replica stand in for work the performer would have done in person, fails to describe the intended use with reasonable specificity, and was not negotiated with legal counsel stating the terms clearly in a signed writing, or covered by a collective agreement that expressly addresses digital replicas. The definition of 'digital replica' excludes an authorised sample, remix or remaster of an existing recording. AB 1836 instead works through the deceased-personality statute: it makes a person who produces, distributes or makes available a deceased personality's replica in an expressive work without consent liable for at least $10,000 or actual damages, with First Amendment-style carve-outs for news, comment, satire, parody and clearly labelled historical or biographical use.

Scope and caveats

AB 2602 only reaches personal-services contracts and only voids the replica-licensing clause itself, not the rest of the agreement, so it does not ban digital replicas; it removes the enforceability of a clause that authorises one without the described safeguards. AB 1836 protects a narrower class, a 'deceased personality' whose name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness had commercial value, and it exempts news, satire and documentary use even without consent. Neither statute creates a new federal right, and both apply only to conduct and contracts reached under California law.

What to watch

Editorially, the detail worth tracking is whether a production or platform operating on vertical dramas actually restructures its digital-replica clauses to meet the 'reasonably specific description' and counsel-or-union representation tests, since a contract signed before 2025 in the old form remains enforceable only for uses that were already contemplated in its terms.

• Does a replica clause name the specific intended uses, or rely on open-ended language the new rule treats as unenforceable?
• Was the performer represented by counsel or a union when the replica terms were agreed, as Section 927 requires for the clause to hold?
• If a deceased performer's replica appears in a vertical drama, does the use fall under AB 1836's news, satire or documentary exemption, or does it require consent from the rights holder?

Both statutes were signed on the same day but amend different codes for different reasons, and a claim that 'California passed AI likeness protection' should specify which of the two is doing the relevant work.