On September 30, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the Senate to pass the NO FAKES Act, the federal bill on AI copies of your voice and face, by unanimous consent. Senator Ted Cruz objected. Deadline reported he said the bill didn't have enough exceptions for satire and political commentary, and that he still wants it to pass once that's worked out. The bill, S.4591, has been sitting on the Senate calendar since June 24. Meanwhile, your digital replica contract still has to answer to the rule below.
So if a brand or an app hands you a "digital twin" clause this fall, don't wait for Congress to rescue you. In California, a rule that applies is already on the books. Let's read it.
Takeaway #1: A vague replica clause can be unenforceable in California
FROM THE STATUTE
"A provision in an agreement between an individual and any other person for the performance of personal or professional services is unenforceable only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if the provision meets all of the following conditions..."
What it means for you. Labor Code §927 came from AB 2602 and took effect January 1, 2025. A digital replica clause fails only if all three conditions are true:
- it lets the other side use your replica "in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person"
- it "does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses"
- you weren't represented by a lawyer who negotiated your replica rights, with the terms "stated clearly and conspicuously" in a writing you signed or initialed, or by a union whose contract "expressly addresses uses of digital replicas"
Read the fine print on the fine print. Even a vague description survives if the uses are "consistent with the terms of the contract" and with "the fundamental character of the photography or soundtrack as recorded or performed." And the law only reaches the replica clause itself. It doesn't touch "any exclusivity grants" tied to it.
So a clause like "Company may create and use Talent's digital likeness in any media now known or hereafter devised" is the kind this law was written for. But it only helps if the replica stands in for work you'd have done in person, and you signed without a lawyer negotiating it or a union contract covering it.
Your move. Creators: before you sign, get a lawyer to negotiate the replica terms, and insist on a written list of uses. The twist: once a lawyer negotiates it, §927 stops being your safety net, so that list is your protection. Brands and agencies: if you want the clause to stick, describe the uses and make sure talent has counsel. Don't count on "they'll never check."
Takeaway #2: What the stalled federal bill would cap
FROM THE BILL (AS REPORTED)
"...while the applicable individual is living, is valid only to the extent that the license duration does not exceed 10 years..."
What it means for you. If NO FAKES passes in its reported form, a license of a living person's digital replica would also have to be "in writing and signed" and include "a reasonably specific description of the intended uses." For minors, the cap drops to 5 years, and the license must be "approved by a court in accordance with applicable State law." Licenses governed by a union contract "that addresses digital replicas" are carved out.
It isn't law. But it points the same way as California: say what the replica will do. It adds a rule California doesn't have: don't make it forever.
Your move. Draft today's deals so they'd survive either rule. Give the replica license a term of 10 years or less, list the uses specifically, and sign it with counsel.
Sample wording: "Licensee may use the Digital Replica only for the uses listed in Schedule 1, for a term ending on the earlier of [date] or 10 years from signature. Any other use requires Talent's separate written consent and separate payment."
And always remember, don't sign it till you read it, my friends.
General information, not legal advice. Reading this doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Digital replica laws vary by state, so get advice on your own deal.
Sources
- California Labor Code §927 (AB 2602, Stats. 2024, Ch. 259), California Legislative Information
- S.4591, NO FAKES Act of 2026, reported in Senate (text), Congress.gov
- S.4591 all actions, Congress.gov
- Deadline, Ted Cruz Blocks Senators' Effort To Pass No Fakes Act (Sept 30, 2026)
- U.S. Senate Press Gallery, Senate Floor Log, Wednesday, September 30, 2026
- Politico, Cruz kills Blackburn effort to pass AI deepfakes bill (Sept 30, 2026)
