AB 723 Digitally Altered Images Disclosure Rules for AI Listing Video

A spec home three months from framing doesn't exist yet, but the marketing video already shows someone walking through a finished kitchen. As of September 2026, California's AB 723 digitally altered images disclosure requirement, new MLS rules built on top of it, and a fresh test for AI-generated listing video all bear on that clip before a builder or developer ever posts it. This guide lays out what the law and the rules actually say, where a rendering-based AI film of an unbuilt home sits inside them, and what a small studio or builder should do before the next listing goes live.

Key takeaways

• As of January 1, 2026, California's AB 723 requires disclosing a digitally altered listing image and linking to the unaltered original.
• SDMLS and NorthstarMLS have turned that law into concrete MLS rules: a caption label, a paired "before" image, and enforcement for skipping either.
• HousingWire's five-question test (June 30, 2026) extends the same disclosure logic to AI-generated listing video, which none of the statute or MLS text names directly.
• Wisconsin's Act 69 (2027) and New York's pending S9584 write "digital representations," including video, directly into their own disclosure laws.
• A rendering-based AI film of an unbuilt home falls outside AB 723's literal wording but inside the spirit of every rule here — label it as a concept.

What AB 723 actually requires

California's AB 723 was chaptered on September 12, 2025 and, per SDMLS, took effect for MLS enforcement purposes "beginning January 1, 2026." The bill text requires a real estate broker or salesperson, or someone acting on their behalf, to include a statement disclosing that a listing image has been altered along with a link, URL or QR code that identifies the original, unaltered image, whenever they use a digitally altered image in an advertisement or promotional material for the sale of real property.

The law defines a "digitally altered image" broadly: a photograph changed with photo editing software or AI to add, remove or change elements such as fixtures, furniture, appliances, flooring, paint, landscaping, the facade or a neighboring property visible from the listing. It carves out standard adjustments — lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, angle, straightening, cropping and exposure — that don't change what the property actually looks like.

The bill text itself doesn't spell out a specific fine, saying only that a violation is treated as a crime under existing Real Estate Law. MLS boards have filled that gap with their own numbers: CRMLS's FAQ, updated July 24, 2026, states that violating its rule brings a warning first, then "a $250 fine" if uncorrected — an MLS-level penalty, separate from whatever a licensing board might do under the statute itself.

MLS rules turn the law into a photo-by-photo checklist

Two MLS organizations show how boards are converting AB 723's general language into a specific workflow — and one of them isn't even in California.

SDMLS confirms it is enforcing AB 723 "as part of its MLS rules and data distribution standards" starting January 1, 2026, and repeats the statute's core mechanics: "the unaltered original image must be available and paired with the altered image." Per SDMLS's own page, that pairing requirement applies to MLS displays and every downstream use of SDMLS data, including IDX, VOW, APIs and syndication feeds, and vendors can't strip the indicators SDMLS supplies. Skipping it risks a compliance action or losing data access, not just a citation.

NorthstarMLS — which covers Minnesota and western Wisconsin, not California — published its own guidelines on July 10, 2026, arriving independently at nearly the same rules. Per NorthstarMLS's guidelines, "any listing photo that has been virtually staged... AI-generated, or AI-enhanced should be identified as such" in the caption, on the photo or in the remarks, and every altered room needs "at least one unaltered 'before' image" alongside the altered one. Permanent features — walls, floor coverings, doors, windows, roofing, siding, ceilings, fireplaces, driveways and site grading — can't be faked or hidden, though ordinary cropping and exposure work is still fine. Two MLS boards in different states landing on the same three requirements — label it, pair it, don't touch permanent features — suggests an industry default, not a California quirk.

The five-question test for AI-generated listing video

None of the sources above use the word "video." AB 723 talks about a "photograph," SDMLS about an "image," NorthstarMLS about a "photo." A June 30, 2026 HousingWire piece by Paul Parker fills that gap with a five-question test for agents before they publish AI-assisted listing media:

1. Did technology add to, remove or materially change anything about the property?
2. Does the video present movement or perspective that was never actually captured?
3. Could the change affect how a buyer understands the property?
4. Will the buyer actually see the disclosure?
5. Can the agent show what was real and what was changed?

Parker's framing is blunt: "If a buyer believes they are watching actual footage, that is a disclosure issue." Two state proposals back that logic with statutory language rather than a test. Wisconsin's Act 69, effective in 2027, requires disclosure when advertising uses technology, including AI, in ways that "create a false or misleading impression" — Parker reports it's written to reach reels, animations and generated video, not just photos. New York's S9584, still pending as of September 2026, would define "digital representations" to cover images, video and immersive media whenever they contain material alterations or generated elements.

Where an unbuilt-home film actually fits

Here's the nuance the aggregator posts on this topic tend to skip. AB 723's operative text is written around altering a photograph of a "listed property" — there's an assumed baseline photo that gets changed. A fully AI-generated film built from architectural renderings of a home that hasn't been built yet isn't altering a photograph of existing conditions; there's no unaltered original to link to because no photograph of the finished home exists. Read literally, that puts a pure concept film for an unbuilt spec home outside AB 723's specific mechanics.

That reading doesn't get a builder off the hook, for three reasons. HousingWire's test doesn't depend on which statute technically applies — if a viewer could believe they're watching real footage of a real, finished space, the deception concern is the same either way. Wisconsin's Act 69 and New York's S9584 are written broadly enough to close exactly this gap, so a builder marketing across state lines shouldn't count on a narrow reading holding for long. And if the video is cut alongside any real photography — a finished model unit, an actual site shot, a neighboring completed phase — the pairing and labeling rules apply to those images the moment they appear.

The practical answer for a small studio or builder: treat any AI film built from unbuilt-home renderings as a concept video regardless of what the statute's literal text covers. Say so on screen and in the caption, and state plainly that nothing shown is a photograph of the actual site. You don't need a "before" pairing when no underlying photo exists — but you do need the plain-language equivalent. This is general information about how these rules are structured, not legal advice for a specific listing; a builder with real exposure across several states should get a read from counsel.

If you use Arch2Video to turn renderings or finished-project photographs into a short concept film, that honesty extends to the people in it. Every film includes a small original fictional cast in at least one scene, even when your source images show real people or nobody at all, so anyone visible in an unbuilt-home film is invented, not a future occupant — worth a line in the caption too. Review every scene from rendering-to-video tools before it goes out: generated motion interprets the source images and can change details.

Who actually owes the disclosure

AB 723's duty lands on "a real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf" who places the ad — usually the builder's listing agent, not the architecture studio that supplied the renderings. But "person acting on their behalf" is broad enough that a firm producing the marketing video itself could be swept in.

If your studio hands a builder client a rendering-based film for use in a listing, confirm in writing, before the ad runs, who is adding the caption label and the link to any underlying original. That's the same conversation worth having about who owns the images going in — see photo licensing terms for video if the renderings came from a separate photographer or visualization vendor.

A one-page reference: which rule, which deadline

Before posting an AI-generated film of an unbuilt home in a listing:

• Label it on screen and in the caption as a concept or rendering-based video, not footage.
• State plainly that the property doesn't exist yet in the form shown, or which elements are proposed.
• Pair the original photo only where one actually exists — a real site shot or model-unit photo cut into the film.
• Confirm in writing which party is filing the required disclosure before the ad goes live.
• Recheck your state's and MLS's current rule each listing season; this area moved from a bill signature to two MLS rulebooks in under a year.

Frequently asked questions

Does AB 723 apply to a home that hasn't been built yet?

Its text is written around altering a photograph of a "listed property," so a fully AI-generated film built only from architectural renderings of an unbuilt home sits outside that literal wording — there's no original photo to pair it with. Treat it as covered anyway: label it a concept video and state plainly that nothing shown is a photograph of the actual site. This is general information, not legal advice for a specific listing.

Who has to add the disclosure: the builder, the architect or the listing agent?

AB 723's duty falls on "a real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf" placing the ad, which is usually the builder's listing agent rather than the architecture studio that supplied the renderings. Any firm handing a rendering-based film to a client for a listing should confirm in writing, before the ad runs, who is adding the label and the link to the original.

Does an MLS's own rule matter if AB 723 doesn't clearly apply?

Yes. SDMLS enforces AB 723 as an MLS rule with its own compliance actions, and NorthstarMLS, outside California, requires the same caption label and a paired "before" image for any AI-generated or AI-enhanced photo regardless of state law. A listing that clears AB 723's text can still violate an MLS's own rule if the caption or pairing is missing.

Will other states follow California's approach for video specifically?

Two are already moving that direction. Wisconsin's Act 69, effective in 2027, covers "digital representations," a term reported to include reels, animations and generated video, not just photos. New York's S9584, still pending as of September 2026, would define "digital representations" the same broad way. Confirm the current status of each before relying on it.

How is this different from the AI-disclosure guidance for architects on this site?

This piece covers US real-estate listing law and MLS rules aimed at builders, developers and listing agents. The related guide on AI rendering disclosure for architects covers the EU AI Act, AIA guidance and platform labels on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok — a broader set of rules that applies whether or not a project is listed for sale, and is worth reading alongside this one if your studio works across both worlds.