California AB 1836 and the post-mortem digital replica

California followed Tennessee six months later. Assembly Bill 1836, signed by Governor Newsom in September 2024, amended California's existing post-mortem right-of-publicity framework, the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act, to explicitly include AI-generated digital replicas of deceased performers.

What AB 1836 does

AB 1836 makes it unlawful to produce, distribute, or commercially use an AI-generated digital replica of a deceased performer's voice or likeness without consent from the rights holder. The Act covers California-domiciled deceased performers, and it includes a private right of action, which means rights holders can sue without needing the state to act on their behalf.

The bill specifically addresses the gap that the original Astaire Act left when AI cloning emerged. The statutory definition of a digital replica is now broad enough to cover modern neural voice cloning, voice conversion, deepfake video, and any combination thereof.

Why this matters globally

Like the ELVIS Act, AB 1836 is jurisdictionally bounded. It applies to California-domiciled deceased performers. But California is California. The state contains a substantial fraction of the global music, film, and television industry. Most major American music estates and many international ones have California domicile or substantial California ties through their publishing, recording, or trust administration.

AB 1836 effectively becomes the de facto US standard for posthumous voice and likeness AI work. Combined with the ELVIS Act in Tennessee, the United States now has reasonably comprehensive state-level protection for deceased performers' voices in the two states that matter most for the music industry. Other states, notably New York and Texas, are considering similar legislation.

Practical implications for buyers

If you administer a California-domiciled estate, you now have direct statutory protection. The private right of action means you can act against unauthorised AI voice work without needing state enforcement. This shifts the burden of compliance squarely onto the vendor.

For practitioners, AB 1836 is the second of two state laws that effectively define US compliance standards for posthumous voice AI. The methodology that satisfies the ELVIS Act will satisfy AB 1836, with one addition: California's consent documentation should expressly acknowledge the AB 1836 framework and the right-of-action provisions.

What buyer-side counsel will check

In our experience working with estate counsel and entertainment lawyers, the AB 1836 review checklist for any proposed AI voice engagement includes:

Demonstrable chain of authority from the deceased to the signing rights holder. The trust instrument, the will, or the court appointment establishing the signatory's power.

An enumerated scope-of-use document. Not a generic licence. The Act's definitions are specific; consent should match.

A retirement clause that survives the engagement. The rights holder must retain perpetual control to retire the model.

A provenance manifest that can be audited if challenged. The Act's private right of action means counsel needs to be able to defend the work in court if questioned.

Where this fits

Voice Estate, the methodology Alabo.Studio uses, is jurisdictionally compatible with AB 1836 by design. Our consent template includes the AB 1836 framework reference for California-domiciled engagements. Our provenance manifest is auditable to the standard the Act's private right of action requires.

The Act is not a barrier to posthumous voice AI work; it is the framework that makes it legally defensible. Practitioners who treat it as the foundation produce work that survives challenge. Practitioners who treat it as inconvenience produce work that creates liability for their clients.