State AI Activity

“Synthetic Performers.” A first-of-its-kind New York transparency law targeting AI-generated digital actors went into effect on June 9, 2026. The statute requires advertisers to conspicuously disclose when a commercial campaign features a “synthetic performer” rather than a real human. The momentum to regulate hyper-realistic digital likenesses is rapidly sweeping across state legislatures. In California, lawmakers have advanced Senate Bill 1050 to mandate similar false advertising disclosures. In response, AAF has weighed in with two industry letters opposing the California bill and offering critical industry guidance on the issue. Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania legislature has advanced its own Artificial Intelligence Transparency in Advertising Act through House Bill 95. The Pennsylvania bill is designed to protect consumers by enforcing clear disclosures the very first time an AI-altered element appears in a promotion. Together, these sweeping state-level bills represent an aggressive new era of regulatory frameworks managing synthetic media.

Other AI-Related State Activity

The state-level regulatory landscape for AI extends far beyond performer likenesses.

• A major area of rapid legislative action centers on political advertising, where states like Vermont have approved measures mandating prominent disclosures for any deceptive, AI-altered media used in campaign promotions.
• Beyond political messaging, broader commercial transparency mandates are gaining momentum; for instance, Georgia and Massachusetts have introduced comprehensive bills requiring automated or conspicuous disclosures whenever generative AI is utilized to create or modify commercial content.
• Concurrently, state-level data ownership and intellectual property laws are shifting, highlighted by Arkansas enacting statutes that clarify copyright ownership parameters for inputs fed into generative models.

For national brands, navigating this emerging patchwork is increasingly high-stakes, as state Attorneys General are actively treating undisclosed AI marketing as deceptive trade practices.

Federal Privacy Activity

The SECURE Data Act (H.R. 8413), passed on June 3, 2026, by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, would replace the fragmented patchwork of state privacy regulations with a single national standard. For the advertising industry, this would establish a uniform framework for opt-out targeted advertising and data sales, offering a more predictable environment for campaign planning and consumer compliance. Though the House might pass the bill, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

AAF continues to work with our partners at Privacy for America to urge Congress to enact federal privacy legislation. Many local AAF chapters, represented by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Privacy Working Group, have contacted those members encouraging them to push for action. AAF Des Moines has reached out to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, AAF Fort Worth to Rep. Crain Goldman, AAF Houston to Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Rep. Randy Weber, the Idaho Advertising Federation to Rep. Russ Fulcher, AAF Louisville to Rep. Brett Guthrie, AAF North Central Florida to Rep. Kat Cammack, AAF North Dakota to Rep. Julie Fedorchak, AAF Roanoke to Rep. Morgan Griffith, and AAF Tampa Bay to Rep. Gus Bilirakis.

State Privacy Activity

In the absence of Congressional action, many states are seeking to pass their own privacy laws, some comprehensive and some more narrowly targeted, such as regarding health, location data, or pricing programs. The AAF does not support the enactment of any of these laws, believing a single national standard would better serve both consumers and businesses. However, in recognition that many states will pass privacy laws, in addition to expressing our opposition, we offer suggestions to lawmakers as to how they can make the measures more closely align with existing laws in other states.

Newly Passed and/or Enacted State Privacy Laws

• New Jersey Enacts Data Broker Law. On June 30, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed into law A5328, establishing a strict, immediate prohibition on the sale or licensing of sensitive data, and creating a mandatory public registry for data brokers. This sweeping legislation introduces a new “data collector” category, expanding compliance obligations to entities that sell or license consumer data to brokers. While registration is required, the public database for these brokers is not anticipated to be operational until March 2027. Covered entities must comply with requirements regarding annual fees, data privacy practices, and cybersecurity history reporting. Violations of the law carry severe penalties, reaching up to $50,000 for each individual record improperly sold or licensed. Consequently, advertising compliance teams must immediately audit data handling practices to ensure compliance with these new regulations.
• Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act. Governor Phil Scott signed S71, the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act, into law on June 16, 2026, and most of its provisions will take effect on January 1, 2028. The enactment revives comprehensive consumer privacy legislation in Vermont while bringing the state into closer alignment with other state-level frameworks. However, it imposes broad new compliance obligations on companies doing business in the state, including mandatory consent requirements, regular data protection assessments, and expanded consumer data rights. Specifically, the new law requires the advertising industry to allow consumers to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and certain profiling activities. AAF joined others in the industry in a letter opposing the overbroad obligations.
• Louisiana Data Privacy Act. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed Senate Bill 386 into law on May 29, 2026, officially enacting the Louisiana Data Privacy Act. The new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2027, grants consumers the right to opt out of their personal data being processed for targeted advertising. It also requires businesses engaging in targeted advertising to conduct rigorous data protection assessments before doing so. Although the new legislation does not introduce entirely novel compliance obligations, it features an interesting mix of California- and Connecticut-style frameworks.
• Delaware HB 380 Relating to Personal Data Privacy, Veto Request. AAF submitted a letter, along with others in the industry, urging Governor Matt Meyer to veto this bill, which would amend the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (“DPDPA”) in a manner that would diverge from the existing state privacy law consensus. If enacted, the law would subject more advertising agencies to state privacy laws by drastically lowering the consumer data threshold, mandating Data Protection Assessments for targeted advertising, and requiring stricter contractual agreements for sharing consumer data with third-party advertising partners. The yet-to-be-signed bill would require that businesses disclose processing purposes “at the time of collection” and restrict subsequent uses of personal data to those purposes unless additional consumer consent is obtained. This departs from the framework adopted in most state privacy laws, which generally require businesses to maintain publicly available privacy notices describing categories of data collected and processing purposes, but do not mandate a separate, additional collection-stage disclosure tied to purpose limitation obligations.

Active State Privacy Bills

• California AB 883 Relating to Public Records. AAF joined other industry groups in a letter opposing this bill, which would, among other things, shorten from 45 days to 30 the required timeframe for data brokers to check the Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (“DROP”) and process consumers’ deletion requests. The bill also would establish a private right of action. Although we appreciate the CA Assembly’s focus on protecting personal information associated with elected officials and judges, the legislature should allow the recently enacted deletion mechanism to operate under its existing timelines and existing enforcement mechanisms before proposing changes.
• California AB 1542 Sensitive Personal Information. As currently drafted, AB 1542 takes an overly broad and blunt approach by flatly prohibiting businesses from selling or sharing sensitive personal information when Californians already have a right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information under existing law. AB 1542’s approach also starkly contrasts with the approach of most other state privacy laws, which require consumer consent to process sensitive personal information rather than banning the processing of such data outright. AAF is working with other stakeholders to oppose the bill and offer constructive input to the sponsors.
• Massachusetts H. 5479 Consumer Data Privacy. H. 5479 contains provisions that are out-of-step with privacy laws in other states and will only add to the increasingly complex privacy landscape for both businesses and consumers across the country. AAF submitted an industry letter asking the legislature to adopt an approach to data privacy that is harmonized with other state privacy laws.
• New York S8623B and A9349B Prohibits the Use of Surveillance Pricing. AAF joined other advertising industry groups in a letter opposing these companion bills. They are drafted in a way that could be interpreted to apply to business-to-business contexts rather than applying only to business-to-consumer transactions. Before advancing the bills further in the legislative process, we requested that the legislature clarify that the bills apply solely to business-to-consumer contexts, do not create a private right of action, and eliminate the rulemaking authority included in the legislation.
• Alaska HB 367 Consumer Data Privacy Act. In an industry letter, AAF urged the Alaska House Finance Committee to allow the ongoing federal effort to enact a preemptive national privacy law, rather than seeking to adopt a privacy law that is out-of-step with that federal proposal. The Alaska bill also does not align with the vast majority of omnibus privacy laws across the states.
• New York SB 9269 and AB 10357 Health Information Privacy Act. This bill would hinder New Yorkers’ ability to access services and burden the operation of many businesses in the state. Along with our counterparts in the industry, AAF submitted a letter opposing the two companion bills, noting that the legislative language in each has not materially changed from substantially similar legislation that Governor Hochul vetoed last year.

Prescription Drug Advertising

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has formalized plans to propose sweeping changes targeting direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising. The proposed rule, Transparency in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising, would eliminate the long-standing “adequate provision” option for broadcast and digital media. Historically, this allowed ads to reference external sources like websites for full side-effect details. If finalized, future campaigns must include a complete “brief summary” of all risks directly within the commercial itself. Industry coalitions warn this shift could severely impact DTC broadcast ads due to cost-prohibitive airtime lengths. Stakeholders should prepare for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) expected in December 2026. This publication will trigger a public comment period before final rules take effect in mid-2027. AAF will work with others in the industry to provide comments to the proposed rule.

Date Set for 2027 Advertising Day on the Hill

Mark your calendars. AAF’s 2027 Advertising Day on the Hill will be held on Thursday, March 11, in Washington, DC. Advertising Day on the Hill is when AAF members from across the country come to our nation’s Capital to learn about the issues important to the industry. They then travel to Capitol Hill to meet with their Senators and Representatives to educate them about advertising and advocate for policies that will allow advertising to continue to drive the U.S. economy.

Advertising Day on the Hill is among AAF’s most important and consequential programs. In conjunction with Day on the Hill, the AAF Board of Directors will meet on Wednesday, March 10, and incoming Council of Governors officers will hold their Forward Planning meeting on Friday, March 12.

Much more information will be forthcoming, but start making your plans to join us in Washington, DC, on March 11 for AAF’s Advertising Day on the Hill.

AAF Government Affairs

The AAF protects and promotes advertising at all levels of government through grassroots activities. Our nationwide network monitors advertising-related legislation on local, state, and federal levels. We put our members face-to-face with influential lawmakers while encouraging self-regulation as a preemptor to government intervention, when appropriate of course. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.

To learn more about our advocacy efforts, click here.