Virtual Staging Rules in California: AB 723 and CRMLS Rule 11.5.2

California is the one place where virtual staging stopped being a question of board policy and became a question of state law. Most of what you will read about it online conflates the two, or quotes an MLS rule as though it were the statute. They are separate obligations, they say different things, and you have to satisfy both.

This article covers what each one actually requires. It is not legal advice, and where we are relying on a secondary source rather than the primary text, we say so.

The statute: AB 723

California Assembly Bill 723 adds section 10140.8 to the Business and Professions Code. It was signed and chaptered in October 2025; California statutes without an urgency clause take effect on the first of January following, and California brokerages and MLSs have been briefing members on a 1 January 2026 start.

What it requires, in substance:

• A reasonably conspicuous statement on or near a digitally altered image, stating that the image has been altered.
• Together with that statement, a link to the original, unaltered image — a publicly accessible website address, URL or QR code where the unaltered version can be seen.
• Where the advertisement appears on a website the licensee controls, the unaltered version must be included or linked and clearly identified.

What counts as a digitally altered image is defined broadly: an image modified to add, remove or change elements — fixtures, furniture, landscaping, paint colours, views, neighbouring properties — whether by photo editing software or by artificial intelligence. Virtual staging sits squarely inside that definition. So does digitally emptying a room.

What does not count: ordinary photographic adjustment. Lighting, white balance, colour correction, cropping and exposure are excluded, provided they do not change how the property is represented. That exclusion matters, because a rule without it would make every professionally edited listing photograph a disclosure event.

Violations are treated under the existing Real Estate Law enforcement provisions rather than through a new penalty scheme of their own.

The MLS rule: CRMLS 11.5.2

CRMLS is the largest MLS in the United States, and its rule sits on top of the statute rather than instead of it. Its own guidance defines a digitally altered image as one "created by or at the direction of the real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf, that has been changed using photo editing software or artificial intelligence."

The requirements are more specific than the statute's:

• Label the image in the photo description field. CRMLS names the acceptable terms — "digitally enhanced", "digitally altered", "virtually staged".
• Include the original. The unaltered version "must appear in the listing immediately before or after the digitally enhanced image." Not somewhere in the gallery. Adjacent.
• Do not alter the property itself. Users cannot add, remove or modify any real part of a property — wall colour, flooring, cabinets, wall dimensions, landscaping.
• AI landscaping is out entirely. CRMLS states that AI-generated landscaping images are not permitted in the MLS, because they may misrepresent the real property.

CRMLS also notes that virtually clearing a room of furniture which will not be included at closing is itself a digital alteration — a point people routinely miss, because removing things feels less like staging than adding them.

Enforcement is graduated: a warning first, then a $250 fine if it is not corrected in reasonable time.

Where the internet's confusion comes from

This is worth spelling out, because it explains a claim you will see applied to jurisdictions where it is simply not true.

"One unstaged photo for every virtually staged photo" is a real requirement — in California, under CRMLS rule 11.5.2. It is not a universal rule, and it is not the law in Ontario, where the MLS rulebook contains no pairing requirement at all and does not use the phrase "virtual staging" anywhere. We checked that against the rulebook directly and wrote it up in what the Ontario MLS rules actually say.

What appears to have happened is that writers took the most specific and most quotable rule available — California's — and repeated it as though it described North America. If you are practising outside California and someone quotes the pairing rule at you, ask which rulebook it comes from.

Ontario and California compared

The two jurisdictions solve the same problem in opposite ways, and the contrast is instructive if you list in both or write marketing that reaches both.

Ontario uses an accuracy test. Its rule prohibits altered images "that do not accurately depict the listed real estate", and then says nothing about labels, pairs or procedure. The judgement is left to the licensee, which makes it flexible and makes it uncertain.

California uses a procedure. It does not ask you to judge whether an image is accurate; it tells you to say the image was altered, show the original, and never change the property itself. That is more work per listing and considerably less ambiguous.

British Columbia takes a third route again: its regulator has published guidance saying virtual staging may be acceptable provided the image is labelled, with the binding duty being the prohibition on false or misleading advertising. We covered it in virtual staging rules in British Columbia.

If you want a single working habit that satisfies both: never alter the property, always show an unaltered photograph of the same room, and always say plainly that an image is a visualisation. That is stricter than Ontario requires and roughly what California requires, and it is defensible everywhere.

A practical checklist for California listings

• Label every altered image in the photo description field, using CRMLS's own wording.
• Place the unaltered original immediately before or after it in the gallery.
• Add the statutory notice and a link to the original wherever the image is advertised, including your own site — the statute reaches beyond the MLS.
• Stage furniture only. No wall colour, no flooring, no cabinets, no dimensions, no landscaping. AI landscaping is specifically excluded by CRMLS.
• Treat digital de-cluttering as alteration too. Removing furniture that is not staying is covered.
• Check your own MLS. CRMLS is the largest but not the only one in California, and other MLSs may word their rule differently.

Sourcing, plainly

The AB 723 summary above is drawn from the bill text on the California Legislative Information site, including the section it adds and the exclusions it lists. The CRMLS requirements are drawn from CRMLS's own published guidance, which is the operator's statement of its rule rather than a third-party summary.

Two honest limits. We have not reviewed how the statute has been applied in practice, because at the time of writing it is new. And the 1 January 2026 operative date follows the standard commencement rule for a chaptered non-urgency statute rather than an explicit date we located in the text — if that distinction matters to you, confirm it with your brokerage's counsel.

We make an AI virtual staging tool, which is a reason to be careful with this rather than casual. Our general guide to virtual staging disclosure covers the principles, and the listing agent's workflow covers where disclosure fits into preparing a listing. If you think we have read something wrong, tell us.

Verified against the AB 723 bill text and CRMLS published guidance. Rules change; confirm before relying on this.