New York enacts law requiring disclosure of AI‑generated ad images–even as Trump says no

New York passes a law mandating transparency in advertising involving synthetic people, but faces an imminent federal challenge as President Trump signs an executive order to coordinate AI regulation across the US, risking a legal showdown over local protections versus national standards.

New York has moved to force transparency in advertising that uses synthetic people, enacting a law that requires producers to disclose when images or video feature AI‑generated performers rather than real people. According to the original report, the rule , signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 11, 2025 , imposes fines of $1,000 for a first offence and $5,000 for subsequent violations and also requires consent from heirs or executors before using a deceased person’s name, image or likeness for commercial purposes. ^{[1] [2]}

Backers of the measure argue the technology has advanced to the point that synthetic figures can be almost indistinguishable from real people, and that disclosure is necessary to prevent consumers being misled when products are marketed using entirely software‑created talent. Industry and consumer advocates say the law is intended to keep pace with rapid AI development while protecting artists and viewers. ^{[1] [2]}

The new New York requirement emerged amid broader international and domestic pressure to regulate AI in advertising. South Korea, for example, will require clear labelling of AI‑created advertisements from early 2026 in response to deceptive deepfake celebrity and fabricated‑expert promotions, and has tightened monitoring and takedown procedures to protect vulnerable consumers. ^[7]

But the New York law’s future is uncertain after a federal intervention announced the same day it was signed. President Donald Trump on December 11, 2025, signed an executive order directing the Attorney General to set up an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that conflict with national AI policy and instructing the Commerce Department to review state regulations and consider withholding federal funds from states deemed obstructive. The White House said the move is intended to prevent a “patchwork” of state rules that could hinder US competitiveness in AI. ^{[3] [4] [5]}

The administration has framed its approach as an effort to ensure a unified federal framework: the White House fact sheet described the order as safeguarding American leadership in AI by preventing inconsistent state regulation. Critics argue that pre‑empting state rules could strip local governments of the ability to protect consumers against emerging harms. According to reporting, the order also directs federal scrutiny of state rules and contemplates legal action where state laws diverge from national strategy. ^{[4] [5] [3]}

The executive actions on December 11 also included measures affecting federal procurement: the administration announced that AI vendors bidding for federal agency contracts will be required to assess political bias in their large language models, a policy likely to reshape how firms demonstrate compliance for government work. Observers say those procurement conditions, together with the litigation threat to state laws, signal a prioritisation of centralised oversight and industry‑friendly consistency over a mosaic of state‑level consumer protections. ^[6]

The clash between New York’s transparency mandate and the federal executive order sets up a likely legal contest over the balance between state consumer protection authority and the federal government’s bid for a single national AI policy. For now, the New York disclosures are law; whether they will survive federal legal challenge or be reconciled with a national framework remains to be seen. ^{[2] [3] [4]}

📌 Reference Map:

##Reference Map:

• ^[1] (Aachener Zeitung) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2
• ^[2] (Governor of New York) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7
• ^[3] (The White House presidential actions) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
• ^[4] (The White House fact sheet) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
• ^[5] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5
• ^[6] (Reuters) – Paragraph 6
• ^[7] (Associated Press) – Paragraph 3

Source: Fuse Wire Services