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  
Report Pass
7/2/25  

Caption

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

Impact

The proposed changes would notably impact state laws governing consent for using personal identifiers in commercial contexts. By explicitly permitting injunctive relief, SB 683 provides a quicker avenue for individuals to prevent unauthorized uses of their likenesses, addressing gaps in existing legislation that may allow unauthorized use to continue for extended periods before court resolutions are reached. Specifically, it mandates that respondents comply with court orders within two business days, tightening regulatory timelines.

Summary

Senate Bill 683, introduced by Senator Cortese, focuses on privacy rights concerning the use of individuals' names, voices, signatures, photographs, or likenesses. It amends Section 3344 of the Civil Code to allow those affected by unauthorized use to seek injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders. This further strengthens the legal remedies available for unauthorized exploitation of personal attributes for commercial purposes without prior consent, enhancing protections especially for identifiable individuals.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding SB 683 reflect a generally supportive sentiment emphasizing the importance of privacy rights in the digital age. Advocates argue that the bill addresses critical needs for contemporary protections in a landscape where digital representations of individuals can be easily misused. However, there may also be concerns from media and advertising sectors about potential overreach, fearing that stricter regulations might hinder creative enterprises and free speech.

Contention

Despite largely favorable discussions, contention might arise regarding the balance between protecting individual rights and allowing certain commercial freedoms. Notably, the bill does not impose liabilities on media owners for unauthorized usage unless they are proven to have knowledge of such use. This aspect could lead to disputes over who holds responsibility in cases involving personal likenesses, particularly in contexts where media entities engage with content creators.

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 AB2886

Gambling Control Act: injunctive relief.

CA AB3050

Artificial intelligence.

CA AB801

Student privacy: online personal information.

CA SB1223

Consumer privacy: sensitive personal information: neural data.

CA AB1004

Initiative, referendum, and recall petitions: signatures: voter notification.

CA AB361

Vehicles: photographs of bicycle lane parking violations.

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.

MS SB2796

Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act; enact.