SB 37: California's first step toward ethical advertising in the age of AI

Advertising in the legal industry is undergoing a transformation unlike anything we have seen in decades. For years, the rules governing attorney marketing were built for a world of billboards, mailers and TV commercials. Today, that world has been replaced by algorithmic targeting, paid influencer videos, outsourced vendor campaigns and AI videos. 

California's SB 37 is the first serious effort to bridge this gap. It modernizes attorney advertising rules to match the realities of a digital marketplace where consumers often cannot tell whether a lawyer is an actual lawyer, an actor or increasingly, an avatar. In a moment where AI can replicate a human face, voice or testimonial with unsettling accuracy, SB 37 is more than a regulatory update. It is an attempt to restore clarity, accountability and trust. 

What SB 37 does and why it matters 

SB 37 is California's first major overhaul of attorney-advertising standards in more than a decade. It redefines what "truthful and not misleading" means in a world where content is produced by vendors, influencers and AI systems that consumers mistake for authentic legal guidance. 

At a high level, SB 37 requires that all attorney advertisements--across digital, print, video, audio and social media--accurately represent who is speaking, what is being promised and whether the content is real, dramatized or synthetic. It requires law firms to disclose when advertisements use altered or AI-generated elements, including avatars, simulated clients or digitally enhanced settlement depictions. 

Just as important, the law addresses a growing issue that predates AI: the blurring of lines between law firms and the vendors who advertise on their behalf. SB 37 prohibits ads that obscure whether a consumer is communicating with a law firm or with a lead-generation company. It also restricts misleading "success story" formats, fictitious client portrayals without disclaimers, and unverifiable settlement claims. 

The message is clear: If an advertisement creates a false impression about the lawyer, the result or the client, it must be corrected or removed. 

SB 37 shifts responsibility onto the law firm. Even if a vendor or marketing agency produced the ad, the firm is accountable for ensuring the content is ethical and compliant. 

How we got here: A decade of vendor-driven advertising 

Long before deepfakes entered the conversation, the plaintiff's bar was grappling with a different problem: a lead-generation ecosystem that rewarded volume over transparency. As firms outsourced more of their marketing, vendors began running aggressive campaigns. 

Over time, law firms found themselves competing against their own vendors for keywords, paying inflated rates for recycled leads and relying on ads that prioritized engagement metrics over accuracy. The practice became normalized, but its ethical implications were never seriously examined. 

Consumers were inundated with videos of people flipping through money, promising effortless settlements or appearing in picturesque European backdrops while discussing motor-vehicle-accident cases. 

As AI tools evolved, these tactics only became easier, faster and cheaper to deploy. It has made it even harder for consumers to distinguish legitimate legal services from misleading content created in a studio, by an influencer, or now, by software. 

SB 37 is a response to this increasingly blurred landscape. It is meant to reestablish a baseline of honesty in an advertising environment that has drifted far from its ethical foundation. 

The larger issue: When authenticity breaks down, trust follows 

Although SB 37 focuses on advertising, the forces driving it extend well beyond marketing. AI tools capable of generating synthetic faces, voices and narratives have made authenticity a moving target across the entire legal process. Deepfakes are now widely available, deceptively realistic and frequently used to mislead. 

Their impact touches every corner of the legal industry: 

• Evidence can be fabricated or manipulated, undermining the reliability of photos, videos and audio recordings. 

• Insurance carriers increasingly challenge authenticity, complicating legitimate claims. 

• Scammers impersonate law firms using AI voice-cloning and synthetic communications, putting clients at risk. 

• Public confidence erodes when consumers cannot distinguish fact from fabrication. 

SB 37 does not solve all these issues, but it acknowledges them. It is California's first attempt to draw boundaries around authenticity in a digital era where traditional assumptions can no longer be trusted. 

Why California's move could influence the nation 

California has a long history of enacting regulations that eventually shape national standards. The California Consumer Privacy Act became the template for privacy laws in numerous states. Proposition 65 inspired national labeling requirements. California's emissions standards became the de facto national policy for automakers. 

SB 37 follows the same pattern. Other states are already reviewing their language. National bar associations are beginning to examine AI and digital transparency standards. Regulated professions outside law--healthcare, finance, real estate--are monitoring how California handles authenticity in advertising. 

Firms that lead now will shape the next decade of legal ethics 

The legal industry can respond to SB 37 reluctantly or embrace it as the foundation for a modern standard of transparency. The firms that act early will set expectations for the profession. Those that wait will eventually be forced to comply under less favorable circumstances. 

The path forward requires internal governance. Clear policies need to define how AI can be used, how vendors must be monitored and how evidence is authenticated. It requires educating clients on impersonation risks and ensuring that every public-facing message reflects the integrity expected of our profession. 

SB 37 is an opportunity to make ethical marketing the new standard. California has taken the first step. The question now is whether the legal profession will follow or take the lead.