California's SB 1050, SB 951 and SB 574: what the signing announcements say

What the sources cover

The governor's office announcement dated September 16, 2026 says Governor Newsom signed SB 1050 by Senator Angelique Ashby.

The governor's office announcement dated September 30, 2026 lists SB 951 and SB 574 among the bills signed that day. It gives SB 951 the title "Employment: technological displacement: notice."

It gives SB 574 the title "Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers."

The sources are two governor's office announcements and one State Bar of California public comment notice. None of them reproduces the text of the bills, so what follows is limited to what those three documents say.

SB 1050: AI-generated performers in advertising

The September 16, 2026 announcement says the bill requires disclosure in a defined set of ads. It describes the requirement as the explicit disclosure on any video or audio advertisement that uses AI-generated performers to sell a product or service.

The announcement also describes a remedy. It says the bill prohibits the continued use of any advertisement found to be in violation of the law.

The announcement defines the key term. It says a synthetic performer is an AI-created digital figure, voice, or representation that often appears so realistic that it is hard to tell from a real person.

Senator Ashby is quoted in the announcement describing the mechanism in one line. She says the bill requires that synthetic figures be labeled as such.

The announcement does not say what form the label must take, who enforces the bill, what penalties apply, or when it takes effect.

SB 951: worker displacement notice

The September 30, 2026 announcement groups SB 951 with several worker protections. One bullet in that group describes more transparency by requiring employers to provide if a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is caused by an AI system.

The announcement does not attach that bullet to a bill number. It does list SB 951 under the title "Employment: technological displacement: notice." A labor leader quoted in the announcement, California Federation of Labor Unions President Lorena Gonzalez, spoke on four bills together.

The same announcement describes other worker measures signed that day, which the announcement does not tie to SB 951. One bullet says employers may not rely only on AI when making a disciplinary or termination decision.

Another bullet describes a ban on workplace surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms.

The announcement does not give a notice deadline, a definition of "caused by an AI system," an employer size threshold, or an effective date.

SB 574: lawyers, arbitrators and AI

The September 30, 2026 announcement includes a bullet on lawyers. It describes keeping lawyers responsible for practicing law by prohibiting them from fully handing over core legal work, such as drafting briefs or providing legal judgment, to AI.

As with the worker bullets, the announcement does not name the bill that carries this item. SB 574's listed title covers attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers and alternative resolution providers. The announcement does not describe what the bill requires of arbitrators or judicial officers.

The State Bar's separate proposal

The third document is a State Bar notice about proposed changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It does not mention SB 574, and it is a proposal, not an adopted rule.

The notice says the State Bar received a letter from the California Supreme Court on August 22, 2025, directing it to consider incorporating its 2023 generative AI guidance into the rules.

The notice says the committee that drafted the proposal, COPRAC, approved it for public comment on March 13, 2026. The notice lists a comment deadline of May 4, 2026.

The proposed changes bear on how a law firm handles AI tools:

• Rule 1.1 (competence). The proposed new comment says a lawyer must independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology.
• Rule 1.6 (confidentiality). The proposal would define "reveal" to include exposing confidential information to AI tools where there is a material risk of use inconsistent with the duty of confidentiality.
• Rule 3.3 (candor to the tribunal). The proposal says the duty includes the obligation to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including those generated or assisted by AI.
• Rule 5.1 (managerial lawyers). The proposal says managerial lawyers must make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures governing the use of AI.

The notice also lists proposed changes to rule 1.4, on client communication, and rule 5.3, on supervising nonlawyer assistants.

What the documents leave open

None of the three documents gives compliance instructions, effective dates, enforcement authorities or penalty amounts for SB 1050, SB 951 or SB 574. Nor do they give any security-specific requirement for these three bills.

The open points a team would need to resolve from the bill texts are:

• the form and placement of the SB 1050 disclosure;
• the scope of "caused by an AI system" under SB 951;
• the reach of SB 574 over arbitrators and judicial officers;
• how the State Bar's proposed rule changes relate to SB 574, if at all.