California AI Transparency Act
Compliance reference — obligations, penalties, applicability, and primary sources.
Last verified July 14, 2026
Summary
The California AI Transparency Act (SB 942, as amended by AB 853) requires covered generative-AI providers with more than 1,000,000 monthly California users to offer a free AI-detection tool and label AI-generated image, video, and audio content starting August 2, 2026, with a civil penalty of $5,000 for each day a provider is in violation.
The California AI Transparency Act is codified at Business and Professions Code Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 22757). SB 942 created the original covered-provider regime in 2024, and AB 853 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 674) amended the chapter by delaying the operative date and adding large-online-platform, GenAI-hosting-platform, and capture-device-manufacturer duties. The current Chapter 25 operative date is August 2, 2026 under Section 22757.6.
SB 942 is one of three California generative-AI transparency statutes and is best read alongside the other two: California AB 2013, the Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act that requires developers to publish training-data documentation, and California SB 53 (TFAIA), which imposes published safety-framework and critical-incident-reporting duties on frontier-model developers.
Covered-provider duties operative August 2, 2026
Covered providers are entities that create, code, or otherwise produce a generative AI system with over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and public accessibility within California. Beginning August 2, 2026, covered providers must maintain a free AI detection tool, offer users a manifest disclosure option for AI-generated or AI-altered image, video, or audio content, apply latent provenance disclosures to covered content when technically feasible and reasonable, and require licensees by contract to preserve the system's disclosure capability.
AB 853 phase-in duties
AB 853 adds three later control surfaces. Large online platforms must detect compliant provenance data, disclose system provenance data to users, allow user inspection of available system provenance data, and not knowingly strip compliant provenance data or digital signatures from uploaded or distributed content; this section becomes operative January 1, 2027. GenAI system hosting platforms may not knowingly make available a GenAI system that does not place the required disclosures; this section also becomes operative January 1, 2027. Capture device manufacturers must provide latent-disclosure options and embed latent disclosures by default for capture devices first produced for sale in California on or after January 1, 2028.
Healthcare and clinical AI routing
SB 942 is a provenance and disclosure statute for AI-generated or AI-altered image, video, and audio content. It should not be treated as the primary clinical-AI privacy or safety rule. Healthcare workflows that handle PHI or ePHI should pair this California content-provenance analysis with the HIPAA compliance for AI in healthcare guide.
Enforcement and pending amendments
A violator of Chapter 25 is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, collected in a civil action by the California Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel. Each day that a covered provider, large online platform, or capture device manufacturer is in violation is deemed a discrete violation. As of this 2026-06-21 re-verification, SB 1000 (2026, Sen. Becker) has continued to advance through the Assembly: after passing the Senate on May 19, 2026 (33–1) with its urgency clause adopted, it was read a second time, amended, and engrossed in the Assembly on June 9, 2026, and on June 17, 2026 the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection reported it "do pass and re-refer" to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 15, Noes 0), where it currently sits. SB 1000 proposes to amend Sections 22757.1, 22757.2, 22757.3, and 22757.5 of the Business and Professions Code — including deleting the 1,000,000-monthly-user threshold from the "covered provider" definition and renaming the "AI detection tool" as a "disclosure verification tool" — with immediate effect upon enactment, but it has not yet been signed or chaptered, so the operative Chapter 25 text and the August 2, 2026 covered-provider operative date remain unchanged (California Legislature SB 1000 status page, retrieved 2026-06-21).
Frequently asked questions
When does the California AI Transparency Act (SB 942) take effect?
The covered-provider duties in Business and Professions Code Chapter 25 become operative on August 2, 2026 under Section 22757.6. Control surfaces added by AB 853 phase in afterward: large-online-platform and GenAI-system-hosting-platform duties become operative January 1, 2027, and capture-device-manufacturer duties apply to devices first produced for sale in California on or after January 1, 2028.
Who is a "covered provider" under SB 942?
A covered provider is an entity that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative AI system that has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within California. Covered providers must maintain a free AI-detection tool, offer a manifest disclosure option for AI-generated or AI-altered image, video, or audio content, and apply latent provenance disclosures when technically feasible and reasonable. Pending SB 1000 would delete the 1,000,000-user threshold, but it has not yet been chaptered.
What are the penalties for violating the California AI Transparency Act?
A violator of Chapter 25 is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, recoverable in a civil action by the California Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel. Each day a covered provider, large online platform, or capture-device manufacturer remains in violation is treated as a separate, discrete violation, so exposure compounds daily once the statute is operative.
Industry implementation routes
- California AI Transparency Act for healthcare
Healthcare-specific implementation route for teams using the SB 942 source record.
Key obligations
Specific compliance requirements derived from the primary source. Each item links to the relevant statutory section where applicable.
- TransparencyRole: developerCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.2
Maintain a free AI detection tool allowing users to assess whether image, video, or audio content was created or altered by the covered provider's GenAI system.
Deadlinefrom_2026-08-02
- TransparencyRole: developerCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.3
Offer manifest disclosure options and apply latent provenance disclosures to AI-generated or AI-altered image, video, and audio content when technically feasible and reasonable.
Deadlinefrom_2026-08-02
- TransparencyRole: vendorCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.3.1
Large online platforms must detect compliant provenance data, disclose available system provenance data to users, permit user inspection, and not knowingly strip compliant provenance data or digital signatures.
Deadlinefrom_2027-01-01
Related comparisons
Use the side-by-side comparisons to see how this law interacts with adjacent US AI laws and governance frameworks.
- California SB 942 vs AB 2013
Compare source-backed California AI law records and compliance categories.
- Utah AI Policy Act vs California SB 942
Compare source-backed AI law records, applicability, penalties, and compliance scope.
Build a compliance program around these obligations
A single law is one input to a broader program. These guides show how to assign accountability, map every obligation to a control, and split developer-versus-deployer duties across the systems a team operates.
- AI governance: building an AI compliance program
The operating model — owners, committee, decision rights, lifecycle gates — that turns a law into an accountable, auditable program anchored to the NIST AI RMF GOVERN function.
- AI compliance framework: the regulatory control map
How to map each AI system to the laws it triggers, the controls that satisfy them, and the evidence that proves the controls operate.
- Deployer vs developer obligations
Which duties attach to building an AI system versus putting one into use — the split most state AI laws turn on.
Sources
Every fact above is sourced from the official primary source. Independent verification recommended before acting on the information.
- Officialleginfo.legislature.ca.gov — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757 et seq.
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Last reviewed July 14, 2026. Reviewed by the AI Compliance Atlas editorial process against primary sources. Source selection, retrieval dates, and update rules are documented in the Atlas methodology.
We may receive referral commissions from recommended compliance tools. Recommendations are based on product fit and not on commission size. Links marked “partner link” include a tracked redirect.