Skip to content
RELTO
Stage a photo free

Two statutes · Reviewed 2026-09-21

Which states require AI listing photo disclosure?

Two. And they do not agree about what counts, which means the same edited photo can be covered in one state and outside the statute in the other.

Which states require disclosure of AI-altered real estate listing photos?

Two states have enacted a statute specifically on digitally altered real estate listing images. California’s Business and Professions Code § 10140.8, added by AB 723, has been in force since January 1, 2026 and requires a reasonably conspicuous disclosure plus access to the original unaltered image. Wisconsin’s Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m), added by 2025 Wisconsin Act 69, takes effect January 1, 2027 and requires disclosure only where the alteration creates a false or misleading impression of the property. In every other state the obligations come from MLS rules, the NAR Code of Ethics for REALTOR® members, and general misrepresentation and deceptive-advertising law — not from a statute written for this subject.

California and Wisconsin, line by line

Written as differences rather than as one schema with blanks, because these are not two versions of the same law.

Comparison of California Business and Professions Code section 10140.8 and Wisconsin Statutes section 452.136(1m)
DimensionCaliforniaWisconsin
CitationCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8 (AB 723, Chapter 497, Statutes of 2025)Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m) (2025 Wisconsin Act 69, 2025 AB 456)
In forceA Wisconsin licensee has no statutory obligation today. A California licensee has had one since the start of 2026.Yes — since January 1, 2026Not yet — January 1, 2027
What triggers the dutyThis is the difference that decides everything else. Furnishing an empty room is covered in California whether or not anyone is misled. In Wisconsin, on the statute’s text, it is covered only if it misleads.Any alteration that adds, removes, or changes a named element — fixtures, furniture, appliances, flooring, walls, paint, hardscape, landscape, facade, floor plans, streetlights, utility poles, window views, neighbouring propertiesOnly an alteration that adds, removes, or changes elements of the property AND thereby creates a false or misleading impression of the property
Who owes the dutyCalifornia’s "person acting on their behalf" can reach a photographer or agency publishing for the licensee. Wisconsin names only the licensee.A broker or salesperson, or a person acting on their behalfA licensee
What the disclosure must look likeReasonably conspicuous, on or adjacent to the image, and it must say the unaltered images can be accessed through the linkUnspecified — the statute says "disclose" and prescribes nothing further
Original imageThe single biggest operational gap. A California-compliant workflow clears Wisconsin comfortably; a Wisconsin-compliant one does not come close to clearing California.Required to be reachable: a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible original that clearly identifies it. On a website the licensee controls, the unaltered version in the posting — or a link to itNot required at all
Scope of advertisingCalifornia’s text puts rental marketing outside it. Wisconsin’s does not obviously do so.An advertisement or other promotional material "for the sale of real property""In all advertising" — no medium named, no sale limitation on its face
Criminal exposureYes, indirectly: § 10140.8 sits in a division whose § 10185 makes a willful violation a misdemeanorNone — Chapter 452 has no equivalent general criminal provision
Regulatory exposureDRE discipline under Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 10176 and 10177Real Estate Examining Board discipline under Wis. Stat. § 452.14(3); forfeiture capped at $5,000 per violation

The practical upshot

If you build one workflow, build California’s. It is the stricter of the two on every dimension that costs anything — it covers more edits, prescribes the placement, and requires the original to be reachable. A listing prepared to satisfy § 10140.8 satisfies § 452.136(1m) without further thought. The reverse is not close to true: a Wisconsin-compliant listing typically has no original on file and no link, which is two of California’s four requirements missing.

That is also the honest answer for the other forty-eight states. No statute is written for this subject there, but your MLS rulebook almost certainly is, the NAR Code of Ethics binds you if you are a REALTOR® member, and general misrepresentation law has always applied. Treating California’s standard as your floor is the cheapest way to be right in every jurisdiction at once.

What governs the other states

  • Your MLS’s rules. The obligation that actually reaches most agents, and the one enforced first. Wording, placement, whether an original must be paired, and the fine schedule all vary by board. Rules by board.
  • NAR Article 12 and Standard of Practice 12-10. Article 12 requires a true picture in advertising; SOP 12-10 prohibits manipulating listing content to produce a deceptive or misleading result and otherwise misleading consumers, including through misleading images. Note what it is not: the Code contains no rule mandating a virtual-staging label, and the frequently-cited SOP 12-5 is the firm-name-in-advertising standard, not an image rule.
  • General misrepresentation and deceptive-advertising law. State consumer-protection statutes and common-law misrepresentation applied to listing photos long before either statute existed, and still do. Texas’s DTPA lets a buyer recover without proving intent.
  • The FTC Act, Section 5. Prohibits deceptive acts and practices in commerce. It reaches any party that participates in a deception, which can include a vendor on its own conduct.

Related questions

How is Wisconsin’s AI image law different from California’s?

Three ways that matter. Wisconsin’s Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m) only reaches alterations that create a false or misleading impression of the property, where California’s Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8 reaches any addition, removal, or change to a named element whether or not it misleads. Wisconsin requires no original image, no link, and no QR code; California requires access to the original and, on a website the licensee controls, the unaltered version in the posting. And Wisconsin has no criminal analogue to California’s § 10185, which makes a willful violation of California’s Real Estate Law a misdemeanor — Wisconsin’s exposure is Real Estate Examining Board discipline and a forfeiture capped at $5,000 per violation.

When does Wisconsin Act 69 take effect?

2025 Wisconsin Act 69 takes effect January 1, 2027. It was enacted December 9, 2025. Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m), the advertising provision it adds, imposes no obligation on a licensee before the effective date.

Does Wisconsin require showing the original unaltered photo?

No. Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m), which takes effect January 1, 2027, requires disclosure and nothing more — no link, no URL, no QR code, and no unaltered version in the posting. That is a significant difference from California’s Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8, which requires a link, URL, or QR code to a publicly accessible original and, on a website the licensee controls, the unaltered version in the posting itself.

How current is this?

Reviewed 2026-09-21. Two things will date it: another state enacting a statute, and Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m) becoming operative on 2027-01-01. This page is maintained against a review date rather than continuously, so check the primary sources below before relying on it for a transaction.

Sources

Last reviewed: