AB 2602 can void a digital replica clause

California AB 2602 makes some digital replica clauses unenforceable. A performer can sign, and the clause can still be worth nothing. The statute, Labor Code § 927 from 1 January 2025, tests substitution, description and representation together.

That is the point of AB 2602, which took effect on 1 January 2025 as Labor Code § 927. It does not ban digital replicas and it does not create a new tort. It goes after a replica used in place of in-person work, under a clause that never described the use, signed without the representation the statute names. If you are relying on that consent, the clause is the asset, and AB 2602 sets when the asset does not exist.

This is general information, not legal advice. Get counsel to draft or review anything you intend to rely on.

When the clause is actually unenforceable

AB 2602 does not require a specific description and professional representation as two independent gates. A provision in an agreement for personal or professional services is unenforceable only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after 1 January 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if all of the following are true:

The provision allows a digital replica of the person's voice or likeness in place of work they would otherwise have performed in person.
The provision does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses - unless those uses are consistent with the contract and with the fundamental character of the photography or soundtrack as recorded or performed.
The person was not represented by legal counsel who negotiated the replica rights, with commercial terms stated clearly and conspicuously in a writing they signed or initialed, and was not represented by a labor union whose collective bargaining agreement expressly addresses digital replicas.

A specific description can save a clause even when the person is unrepresented. Representation can save a clause that lacks a description. The rest of the agreement can be perfectly sound while the replica paragraph is the one dead piece in it. That is a worse position than having no clause, because you priced the deal as though you had the rights.

Why "any and all uses" is the exact thing this makes unenforceable

The clause AB 2602 was written against is familiar to anyone who has read a talent agreement. It grants the producer the right to create and exploit "digital replicas" in "any and all media now known or hereafter devised," "in perpetuity," and it sits on page eleven of a document nobody expected to be read closely.

Here is roughly where the line falls. These are illustrative, not drafting language:

Clause shape	Why it does or does not describe a use
"Producer may create and exploit digital replicas of Performer in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, in perpetuity."	Describes no use at all. This is the shape the statute exists to make unenforceable.
"...for use in the Picture and any promotion thereof."	Names a project, not a use of the replica. A reader still cannot tell what will be generated.
"Producer may generate a synthetic voice replica of Performer from the session recordings, for ADR and additional lines within the Picture only, during post-production."	Names what is being replicated, what it will be used to make, and the boundary.

The useful test when you are reading a draft: could the performer, from this paragraph alone, picture the finished asset? If the sentence would equally cover a voice clone reading a pharmaceutical script two years later, it has not described a use.

Representation is an alternative path, not a second gate

The representation limb catches a different problem. Counsel or a covering CBA can keep a less specific clause alive. The reverse is also true: an unrepresented person can still grant an enforceable replica right if the intended uses are reasonably specifically described.

If you are commissioning a replica from someone unrepresented - a background performer, a customer testimonial subject, a founder's cousin who agreed to be the face of the ad - the specific-description paragraph is doing all the statutory work. Write it so they could picture the finished asset. Advice before signing is still the conservative move, and the file should record whether they had it. It is not a validity requirement on its own.

Anyone commissioning from creators regularly should treat this as a process change rather than a template change. Our guide for influencer marketing agencies makes the same point from the commissioning side: the license needs to exist before production, not after a client asks where the clip came from.

What a compliant clause has to state

Working checklist. Items 1-4 and 9 are what the statutory test actually turns on; the rest are what makes a grant operable once it survives.

Which replica. Voice, face, full-body performance, or a combination. Say which. A voice grant is not a face grant.
Built from what. The specific source material - named session recordings, a named shoot, a specific reference set.
Used to make what. The specific production or asset type. "Additional dialogue in the Picture" is a use. "Marketing" is not.
Running where. Media, platforms, territory. Territory matters more than it used to, because the governing regime depends on where the subject and the audience sit.
For how long. A term with an end date, and what happens on renewal.
What happens at expiry. Deletion of the trained model or voice embedding, not just of the delivered files. Those are separate things and only one of them is usually in the contract.
Who else may use it. Sublicensing, assignment on a change of control, and whether the replica travels if the campaign is sold.
Whether the material feeds training. A clip license and a permission to train a reusable model on that clip are different grants. Say which one you are getting.
Who represented the performer, and when. Name and date, in the file.

Items 6, 8 and 9 are the ones that get dropped from otherwise careful drafts. The usage rights entry covers the vocabulary if you are writing this into a template for the first time.

Where AB 2602 stops

It is a narrow instrument, and reading it as a general likeness rule leads people to the wrong conclusions elsewhere.

It governs performer contracts, not every use of a face. Generating a replica of someone you have no agreement with is a right-of-publicity problem, not an AB 2602 problem.
It is California. There is no federal right of publicity in the United States. The NO FAKES Act, which would create one, advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on 18 June 2026 as S.4591 and is still a bill.
It does not cover the deceased. Its companion, AB 1836, took effect the same day and requires estate consent for digital replicas of deceased personalities in expressive audiovisual works and sound recordings.
Voice has its own regime elsewhere. Tennessee's ELVIS Act added voice as a protected personal right from 1 July 2024 and reaches tool providers, not only publishers. If a voice replica is involved, that statute is in scope regardless of what your California paperwork says. Our voice and likeness law overview has the comparison.
It says nothing about disclosure. A valid grant does not exempt you from labelling. New York's synthetic performer disclosure took effect 9 June 2026 for ads reaching New York consumers, and EU AI Act Article 50 deployer duties apply from 2 August 2026. The cross-platform labelling checklist covers the operational side.

Making the clause survive contact with production

A clause is only as good as the record attached to the asset it authorised. For every generated asset involving a real person, keep the release, the date, the described use, the model used, and who represented the performer, with the file. When a client or a platform asks, that is a fifteen-minute answer rather than a discovery exercise.

If you are producing spokesperson or testimonial content at volume, the avatar generator is the surface where this discipline matters most, because it produces assets that depict a person. Digital replica rights are turning into property covers why the licensing posture is shifting from tort to asset generally.

FAQ

Does AB 2602 apply if my contract says another state's law governs?

Do not assume a choice-of-law clause solves this. California has a strong interest in performers working there, and validity rules of this kind are frequently applied regardless of what the contract nominates. That is a question for counsel on the specific deal, not something to design around.

Is a clause void, or just unenforceable against the performer?

The statute renders the provision unenforceable. In practice that means you cannot rely on it as your permission, which is the outcome that matters - you are back to having generated a replica without a valid grant.

Can I cure a bad clause after the fact?

You can sign a new agreement that would not fail the statutory test - a reasonably specific use description, or representation by counsel or a covering CBA, on a replica that substitutes for in-person work. What you cannot do is retroactively make the old clause good for material already generated and published under it.

Does this apply to a replica of myself?

No. If you are generating a replica of your own voice or face for your own content, there is no third party whose consent is at issue. Cloning your own voice sidesteps the whole question, which is why it is the safest starting point for solo creators.