Infonestira

A new California law changes what agents must disclose when doctoring listing photos. America Foy breaks down what you can (and can’t) do and the consequences for not disclosing.

Inman Connect

Invest in yourself, grow your business—real estate’s biggest moment is in New York!

Being catfished by photos is disappointing to say the least. The time and energy and space in your head that you’ve invested into a property — imagining yourself there, calculating the lifestyle fit, envisioning renovations — all evaporate the moment you walk through the door and realize the listing photos bear no resemblance to reality.

It never fails to disappoint.

This has been par for the course for close to 20 years now. Agents and photographers enhanced images — sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically — to present properties in their best light. It started with small enhancements.

AI tools removed utility poles, brightened skies, added grass and staged entire homes. The line between “enhanced” and “deceived” blurred, and buyers showed up expecting the MLS pictures, only to find the harsh reality. Some checks were put in place early on. MLS requirements to disclose virtually staged homes have been around for a while, but California has decided it has had enough.

What changed? California’s Assembly Bill 723

Starting Jan. 1, 2026, California’s (new) Assembly Bill (AB) 723 requires real estate professionals to disclose when property listing images have been digitally altered and provide access to unaltered versions.

The statute is brief, 580 words, but clear and impactful. The California Department of Real Estate has enforcement mechanisms in place with real teeth. These include regulatory discipline against brokers and salespersons, civil liability exposure for agents and their firms, and in cases of willful violation, criminal charges. The principle is ancient and unyielding: Ignorantia legis non excusat — ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

What you can’t do

Real estate brokers, salespersons and anyone acting on their behalf must disclose when images are digitally altered and provide access to unaltered versions via link, URL or QR code. Disclosures must be “reasonably conspicuous” and located on or adjacent to the altered image (so use those captions, or get comfortable with adding text to photos).

On websites that agents control, original images must be posted directly or linked. This requirement applies across all platforms, and I mean all of them. MLSs, our personal websites, socials, portals and virtual tours. If a digitally altered image appears anywhere a buyer might see it before making an offer, disclosure is required.

There’s no carve-out for Instagram. No exemption for Facebook. No, “everyone does it.” The language is intentionally open to interpretation because the legislature understood that buyers research properties everywhere, and altered images on any platform can influence their decision to make an offer.

Edits agents have used for years without disclosure now clearly require it under AB 723: Turning on lights, greening grass, removing clutter or equipment, adding pool water, removing snow or cords, adding fireplace effects, removing imperfections, and similar. These practices existed, but disclosure was voluntary. In California, it’s now required.

What you can do

Routine professional adjustments — lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, straightening, cropping and exposure — do not require disclosure if they don’t change the property’s depiction.

The distinction is simple: Does the edit make the property appear different from how it actually is? White balance, exposure and cropping do not.

Consequences

The DRE can pursue disciplinary action for violations, but civil liability poses the greater risk.

If a buyer decides to make an offer, some foreign nationals, investors or relocation buyers still don’t physically inspect the properties, based on undisclosed altered photos, and the property doesn’t match, that buyer has a misrepresentation claim.

Discovery questions are straightforward: Did you alter images? Was disclosure made? Did the buyer see unaltered versions?

“We thought the edits were acceptable” is not a legal defense. California’s consumer protection and false advertising statutes add exposure to fraud and unfair competition claims, including potential attorneys’ fees and damages.

What about existing listings?

The statute doesn’t address retroactivity. Precedent suggests the law applies only to listings posted after Jan. 1, 2026, not retroactively to listings posted before. However, re-listed properties or re-activated listings after Jan. 1 should assume full compliance applies. The safest approach: Consult your broker’s compliance team for definitive guidance, as this remains unanswered.

No more catfishing

AB 723 doesn’t ban image enhancement, but it requires disclosure. Buyers deserve clarity about which images represent reality versus enhancement; disclosure doesn’t weaken marketing. Agents with integrity face minimal compliance burdens. Those using undisclosed alterations now need to change course.

America Foy is a broker associate at The Grubb Co. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Instagram.

Topics: buyer's agent | listing agent | new agent | social media Show Comments Hide Comments Sign up for Inman’s Morning Headlines What you need to know to start your day with all the latest industry developments Sign me up By submitting your email address, you agree to receive marketing emails from Inman. Success! Thank you for subscribing to Morning Headlines. Read Next AI for contracts and disclosures