California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB683

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/5/25  
Refer
3/25/25  
Refer
4/2/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/10/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/10/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Report Pass
6/17/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Refer
6/18/25  
Report Pass
6/17/25  
Refer
6/18/25  
Report Pass
6/25/25  
Refer
6/25/25  
Refer
6/25/25  

Caption

Privacy: use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness: injunctive relief.

Impact

If enacted, this bill will significantly impact existing privacy protections within California by introducing a more accessible pathway for individuals to enforce their rights regarding personal likenesses. It affirms that current legal protections against unauthorized uses can lead to monetary damages and, more notably, injunctive relief, which was less explicitly defined in prior legislation. The introduction of these enforcement mechanisms could change how businesses obtain consent and manage advertising strategies involving personal likenesses.

Summary

Senate Bill 683, introduced by Senator Cortese, seeks to amend Section 3344 of the California Civil Code, enhancing protections related to the unauthorized use of an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in commercial contexts without prior consent. The bill establishes clearer processes for individuals to seek injunctions and temporary restraining orders against unauthorized uses, requiring respondents to comply with such orders promptly, within two business days or faster if mandated by the court.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 683 has been largely positive among privacy advocates who argue that the bill strengthens individual rights against commercial exploitation. However, some business entities express concerns regarding the potential increase in liability, administrative burdens, and the fast-tracked response requirements for compliance with court orders, which they fear may impose significant operational challenges. The debate highlights a broader ongoing conversation about individual rights in the digital age versus the interests of businesses in utilizing personal data for marketing.

Contention

Key points of contention include the burden on businesses to adapt quickly to the legal requirements set forth by SB 683, the potential chilling effect on marketing practices, and the specifics of what constitutes 'prior consent' for commercial use. Furthermore, the provision allowing for punitive damages raises concerns about the implications for businesses that unintentionally violate these privacy rights, potentially leading to significant financial repercussions.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1836

Use of likeness: digital replica.

CA SB646

Civil law: personal rights: online sex trafficking: sexual photographs.

CA SB970

Artificial intelligence technology.

CA AB1394

Commercial sexual exploitation: child sexual abuse material: civil actions.

CA AB3050

Artificial intelligence.

CA AB801

Student privacy: online personal information.

CA AB2886

Gambling Control Act: injunctive relief.

CA SB1223

Consumer privacy: sensitive personal information: neural data.

CA AB1008

California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: personal information.

CA AB1194

California Privacy Rights Act of 2020: exemptions: abortion services.

Similar Bills

CA SB564

Depiction of individual using digital or electronic technology: sexually explicit material: cause of action.

CA SB11

Artificial intelligence technology.

CA SB970

Artificial intelligence technology.

MS HB1654

Publicity rights; authorize for persons whose images are used to sell products.

CA AB1394

Commercial sexual exploitation: child sexual abuse material: civil actions.

CA AB1836

Use of likeness: digital replica.

LA HB415

Enacts the "Allen Toussaint Legacy Act" for the purpose of creating an individual property right of identity