SocialGravity cases

California AB 2602 and specific digital replica terms

California used contract enforceability to address broad digital replica clauses, focusing attention on specific intended uses and professional representation rather than a blanket permission hidden inside a services agreement.

Independent public case analysis. The people and organizations named here are not represented as SocialGravity customers, partners or endorsers. This page uses public sources and was last reviewed 2026-09-05.

Evidence classification

Enacted law

Authorization status

Enacted contract safeguard

Identity elements

Face, Voice

What the public record establishes

• California describes AB 2602 as making certain digital replica provisions unenforceable when the intended uses are not reasonably specific and the individual was not represented by counsel or a labor union.
• The measure addresses provisions in agreements for personal or professional services that permit use of an individual's voice or likeness replica in place of their work.

What it does not establish

• The public announcement is not a substitute for reading the enacted text and applying it to a particular agreement.
• It does not establish that every broad likeness clause is invalid in every jurisdiction or factual setting.

Authorization controls this case exposes

Control	Operational lesson
Scope	Name the campaign, use, formats, channels, territory and term instead of relying on a general AI clause.
Representation	Record the authority and role of counsel, a union or another authorized representative where relevant.
Change control	Treat uses outside the specific description as a new approval question.
Evidence	Keep the signed scope and its version connected to each approved use.

Apply the lesson to a real campaign

A similar request would still need the actual parties, the proposed use, a reviewed scope, signatures, payment status, production records and output evidence. This analysis cannot supply any of those records for a new campaign.

Build an authorization brief from this caseInspect the evidence chain

Primary and first-party sources

1. Governor of California, digital likeness legislation announcement
2. Governor of California, responsible AI legislation summary

This is a technical and operational analysis, not legal advice. Source wording, legal status and platform behavior can change. Check the linked material and obtain advice for the relevant facts and jurisdiction.

Common questions

Is the organization in this analysis a SocialGravity customer?

No. This is an independent analysis of public material. No customer, partnership, endorsement or product use is implied.

Does this page establish that a particular AI use is lawful?

No. It separates documented facts, unknowns and operational controls. A legal conclusion depends on the agreement, evidence, jurisdiction and specific use.

How can a buyer use this analysis?

Use it to identify questions for a campaign brief, then obtain the actual person or rights holder agreement and inspect the evidence before production or publication.