California AB 2013, SB 942

What are the California generative AI statutes?

California signed two AI transparency statutes nine days apart in September 2024. They address generative AI from opposite ends. AB 2013 looks upstream: developers must publish information about their training data. SB 942 looks downstream: large providers must give users tools and disclosures to recognize AI-generated content. Together they bracket the generative AI lifecycle.

The two statutes did not start on the same day. AB 2013’s posting duty fell due on or before January 1, 2026 (Civ. Code section 3111). SB 942 was originally set to become operative on January 1, 2026, but AB 853 (Stats. 2025, ch. 674, signed October 13, 2025) amended Bus. & Prof. Code section 22757.6 so that the AI Transparency Act “shall become operative on August 2, 2026.” Both are now in force.

California law firms encounter these statutes in two ways. First, the statutes feed vendor due diligence when a firm procures AI tools. Second, a firm that builds or hosts its own generative AI tool made available to the public in California may itself fall under the rules.

Who must comply?

AB 2013 reaches developers: a person, partnership, state or local government agency, or corporation that designs, codes, produces, or substantially modifies an AI system or service for use by members of the public (Civ. Code section 3110). The duty covers generative AI systems or services, and substantial modifications, released on or after January 1, 2022 and made publicly available to Californians, whether or not the use is paid. Three categories are exempt: systems whose sole purpose is security and integrity, systems whose sole purpose is operating aircraft in the national airspace, and systems developed for national security, military, or defense purposes and made available only to a federal entity.

SB 942 reaches covered providers: a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative AI system that “has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within the geographic boundaries of the state” (Bus. & Prof. Code section 22757.1). Smaller providers fall outside the core duties. AB 853 added three more categories, each with its own operative date: large online platforms and GenAI system hosting platforms from January 1, 2027, and capture device manufacturers (for devices first produced for sale in California on or after January 1, 2028) from January 1, 2028.

California firms that buy generative AI tools are customers of regulated developers and providers, not regulated parties themselves. A firm that builds or hosts a tool made available to the public, however, may itself qualify as a developer under AB 2013; the SB 942 provider threshold of 1,000,000 monthly users is far above what a law firm tool would reach.

What does each statute require?

AB 2013 (training data transparency). Developers must post documentation on their own website about the data used to train the system, including a high-level summary of the datasets. The statute lists twelve items, among them the sources or owners of the datasets, the number and types of data points, whether the datasets include copyrighted, trademarked, or patented material or are entirely in the public domain, whether they were purchased or licensed, whether they include personal information or aggregate consumer information, any cleaning or processing, the collection period, and whether synthetic data was used. The documentation had to be posted on or before January 1, 2026, and must be posted again before each later release or substantial modification. It is a public disclosure, not a regulator filing.

SB 942 (AI Transparency Act). Covered providers carry three duties, all limited to image, video, and audio content (text is not covered):

• Detection tool. Offer a free, publicly accessible AI-detection tool that lets a user assess whether content was created or altered by the provider’s system, accepts uploads or URLs, and supports an API (section 22757.2).
• Latent disclosure. Embed a latent disclosure in AI-generated content that conveys, to the extent technically feasible and reasonable, the provider’s name, the system name and version, the time and date of creation or alteration, and a unique identifier, and that is detectable by the provider’s tool (section 22757.3(b)).
• Manifest disclosure option. Offer users the option to include a visible disclosure identifying the content as AI-generated (section 22757.3(a)).

A provider that licenses its system must require the licensee by contract to keep the latent-disclosure capability, and must revoke the license within 96 hours of learning that a licensee disabled it (section 22757.3(c)). Violations carry a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, with each day of violation a discrete violation, enforced by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel (section 22757.4).

What does compliance documentation look like?

California firms using third-party generative AI tools may wish to be able to produce three artifacts at carrier renewal or during a bar complaint review:

• For each procured AI tool, a vendor-due-diligence file containing the AB 2013 training-data documentation the developer has published. Missing documentation is itself a procurement signal worth flagging.
• For each tool from a covered provider that generates images, video, or audio, a vendor-due-diligence file recording the SB 942 detection-tool URL and how the provider marks its output.
• A firm-level statement listing approved AI tools and approved use cases, linked to each tool’s AB 2013 and SB 942 documentation.

Firms that build or host a generative AI tool made available to the public may wish to treat AB 2013 as a launch gate and document the published training-data disclosure before going live.

How do these statutes interact with California bar guidance?

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct already govern attorney AI use. Rule 1.1 (competence) requires a lawyer to understand the AI tools used and their limits, and Rule 1.4 governs what a lawyer communicates to the client about how the work is done. AB 2013 and SB 942 do not displace these rules; they sit alongside them. The rules govern the lawyer-client relationship; the statutes govern the relationship between the public and the AI developer or provider.

Deeper California state-bar guidance on attorney AI use lives on the California state page.

Primary sources

• California AB 2013 (2023-2024 Regular Session), Stats. 2024, ch. 817, approved by the Governor September 28, 2024: leginfo bill page. Codified at Civ. Code sections 3110-3111.
• California SB 942 (California AI Transparency Act, 2023-2024 Regular Session), Stats. 2024, ch. 291, approved by the Governor September 19, 2024: leginfo bill page. Codified at Bus. & Prof. Code section 22757 et seq..
• California AB 853 (2025-2026 Regular Session), Stats. 2025, ch. 674, approved by the Governor October 13, 2025, which set SB 942’s operative date at August 2, 2026 and added the platform and capture device provisions: leginfo bill page.