New York’s AI ad disclosure law took effect June 9. Influencer marketers need to audit synthetic talent now

The law applies to commercial advertisements that include a “synthetic performer,” meaning a digitally created, reproduced, or modified asset that gives the impression of a human performer but is not recognizable as a real identifiable person.

For influencer marketing teams, this is bigger than AI avatars.

It can touch UGC-style ads made with synthetic faces. AI product demos with human-like presenters. Creator-style videos generated for paid social. Virtual influencers. Localized ad variations where a real creator is replaced with an AI-generated person. Even creative tests where teams use synthetic talent to move faster before hiring a real creator.

The practical takeaway: synthetic creator content now needs a disclosure workflow

That means influencer briefs should no longer treat AI-generated talent as just another creative format. If a brand, agency, or creator uses a synthetic performer in an ad distributed to New York consumers, the disclosure needs to be visible inside the ad itself. A hidden line in the caption or a note in the landing page may not be enough if the creative itself presents the synthetic person as real.

This matters because influencer marketing is built on perceived human trust. When a viewer sees a person recommending a product, they assume there is a person behind the performance. If that “person” was generated by AI, the campaign moves into a different risk category.

The biggest operational change will happen before production.

Brands should ask creators and agencies three questions before approving content:

1. Does this creative include a human-like AI-generated face, body, voice, or presenter?

2. Is the performer synthetic, partially synthetic, or based on a real person’s likeness?

3. Where will the disclosure appear inside the ad?

The answer needs to be documented in the brief, contract, creative review checklist, and final approval notes.

For influencer marketers, the risk is not only the fine. The first violation can trigger a $1,000 civil penalty, with $5,000 for subsequent violations. The larger issue is reputation. A brand that positions synthetic content as creator content can damage trust with customers, creators, and platform audiences at the same time.

This does not mean brands should stop testing AI creators.

It means synthetic content needs to be labeled, approved, and measured as its own campaign type. Real creator partnerships, virtual influencer campaigns, AI UGC, and paid social variations should not live in the same messy production bucket.

The smart move now is to build a simple AI talent disclosure checkpoint into every influencer campaign workflow:

• Add an “AI-generated performer used?” field to briefs

• Require creators and agencies to confirm whether synthetic talent appears in the asset

• Place the disclosure directly in the visual or video creative

• Keep approval records for each final ad version

• Separate real creator performance benchmarks from AI-generated content benchmarks

The brands that handle this well will not treat disclosure as a legal afterthought. They will use it as a trust signal.

Because in influencer marketing, the audience is not only buying the product. They are buying the authenticity of the recommendation.

Sources:
New York State Senate Bill S8420-A / A8887-B https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8420/amendment/A

Governor Hochul announcement
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislation-protect-consumers-and-boost-ai-transparency-film-industry