On July 14, 2026, Hawaii enacted HB 2137, which prohibits the publication of a realistic digital imitation of an identifiable individual without that individual’s permission in advertising (or where such publication causes harm or is used to commit fraud, defamation, harassment, or other criminal acts). However, early drafts of this law referenced and outlined the permitted uses of synthetic performers in advertising, similar to newly passed laws in New York and California.
A synthetic performer is generally defined as a digitally created asset that is created, reproduced, or modified using generative artificial intelligence, and is intended to create the impression of a performance by a human performer who is, unlike a digital imitation, not recognizable as any identifiable person. The New York synthetic performer law (New York General Business Law (GBL) § 396-b(3)) became effective on June 9, 2026 and requires commercial advertisers to conspicuously disclose the use of a synthetic performer in advertisements. Similarly, California recently passed its own synthetic performer law (SB 1050) on September 16, 2026, becoming the second state to require clear disclosure of the use of synthetic performers in advertising.
While the synthetic performer laws in California and New York have a number of similarities, there are a few key differences, including that California’s law also applies to audio advertisements (which New York’s law expressly exempts) and liability under New York’s law requires actual knowledge that a synthetic performer is in such advertisement (while California’s law has no such knowledge qualifier). Additionally, California’s synthetic performer law prohibits the continued use of any advertisement found to be in violation of the law.
Based on the penultimate draft of HB 2137, Hawaii was set to be the third state to join this group before references to “synthetic performer” were removed from the final draft of the bill. Had Hawaii’s synthetic performer law been enacted, it would have similarly mandated the disclosure of synthetic performers in advertisements, and like New York’s law, exempted audio advertisements and included a knowledge qualifier.
It is not clear why the synthetic performer piece was ultimately removed from HB 2137, but perhaps Hawaii will later join California and New York in requiring such disclaimers when synthetic performers are used in advertising.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
