California recently added new laws regarding AI in real estate. I think lighting corrections and cropping is allowed but other digitally altered images should include a link to the original.
I imagine if these cameras are adding or remove furniture, appliances or modifying flooring or the landscaping via AI it will be a problem.
Edit: also if it becomes a big problem, in the future the law could be changed so that the real estate agent becomes liable to cover the cost of upgrading the property to match the altered image.
It’s pretty much always been against the rules of the mls to use altered photos. Pre ai, people would sometimes get busted for making grass where there was none, or making walls with cracks a solid color. It’s not allowed to alter condition of property.
Staging and virtual staging (including sky replacement and removal of trash cans) are allowed so long as they don’t alter the true nature of the salable property.
I am surprised that AI hasn’t been policed more. Probably they just don’t have the ops for it.
> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to
I'll preface this by saying that I don't agree with how things are working currently. But, the way the existing protections get enforced is by an individual or group of individuals filing lawsuits.
Our regulatory agencies have either been completely gutted by DOGE, or just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement, so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.
Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design, because bringing suit is an expensive and time consuming process and naturally locks out the people harmed the most by these violations. Its the same method by which slumlords/bad landlords get away with so many blatant violations of the various landlord/tenant laws; their tenants can't afford the lawsuits and the lawyers to protect themselves.
The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.
> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to.
This is one of the benefits Realtors(tm) and other licensing boards (lawyers etc) like to tout - we have a code of ethics, we self-regulate, you are safer with them than with Joe Agent, blah blah. You see how that goes.
I mean, what’s the problem with taking such stickers off? I’d love if it we had fewer retarded warnings. And I fail to see how they have anything to do with enforcing consumer protections.
Everything is "okay" with Trump. This social experiment got out of hand long ago. I mean come on, if we (as a society) allowed and okayed pedophilic tendencies, why do we keep looking for the lowest point on the bar? I'm pretty sure, Trump can consume human flesh on live TV and we'd just shrug it off and forget that even happened two weeks later.
This same thing happened to me almost 20 years ago without AI. The pictures were all of another identical apartment in the building.
When we went there to see the one we’d actually be renting, it was clear it hadn’t been cleaned in years, doors were off the hinges, counters had holes burned in them, stove was kicked in, etc.
It already is in a lot of jurisdictions for photo-shopping photos.
Doctoring a photo slightly to make an area look larger, or just using a wide-angle lens though it can cause visible distortion. Removing unsightly poles, signs, trees, neighbouring properties was also common.
Making the sky bluer and removing clouds is acceptable.
You can renovate your home to match an altered image, but you cant change the colour of the actual sky so in a sense that is “more false” advertising. :)
Quite a few times I've seen permanent light fixtures that don't exist, vents that don't exist, room sizes that are obviously implied to be much larger than reality (e.g. they show a full-size bed, but there's only like 4 feet of space in that location), etc.
I don't particularly mind fake furniture, but if it's very much not to scale I think it's pushing "probably fraud". And when permanent fixtures are fabricated, "blatant fraud, penalize immediately, revoke license on repeats". Using an automated tool does not absolve you of consequences, particularly one nigh-universally well-known to fabricate things.
I can’t tell through text if you’re being sarcastic or not. So I’ll add some context for fun. Ran into this a few weeks ago apartment shopping with a friend. AI images of multiple apartments had:
- Relocated the sink from the back counter to the kitchen island.
- Added outlets that didn’t exist.
- Displayed furniture layouts that were not possible in the actual space. That couch looks great in that spot, except when you explore further you realize it’s sitting right up against the master bedroom’s door.
To that last point, no stager would lay it out that way because anyone viewing the apartment would take them to task for you know… having to drag a couch out of the way to open their bedroom door. Staging layouts have always been more pretty than practical but AI staging regularly puts functionally DOA layouts on display.
As far as I’m concerned it’s disingenuous at best, and deception realistically. The process is broken while this slop is in there.
I think the real issue here is lack of progress in AR technology. Tenants may be disappointed by the difference between marketing material and reality, but that can be easily solved by AR glasses that the tenants can wear 24/7 to make the apartment look just like in marketing material, perhaps for a small monthly subscription fee. It's cheaper than renovation, that's for sure.
I'm not sure if you're being serious but it should be illegal because they're producing images that are often not physically possible. At least if an agent stages an apartment with real furniture they are doing something a tenant really could do. But these AI images tend to change the physical dimensions of a room, use images of furniture that don't make sense dimensionally, shift the "natural" light of the room in a way that the sun will never provide and sometimes even change the view through the windows of the room.
Honestly, given the dangerously unmitigated power of Claude Mythos, we should really look into arresting the people who have failed to ask Claude to cure cancer already.
As a rule of thumb, if it is just replacing staging, I don’t have an issue with it. A staged apartment also isn’t “real” so if the AI isn’t adding windows and outlets that don’t exist it’s functionally equivalent to staging.
Most real estate agents are going to stage a house or condo for real regardless because people are really going to go there, not just look at pictures online or show up with a VR headset. So in practice this is only going to affect rental units that are not staged.
California recently added new laws regarding AI in real estate. I think lighting corrections and cropping is allowed but other digitally altered images should include a link to the original.
https://lewisbrisbois.com/insights/clientalerts/new-californ...
https://dre.ca.gov/Licensees/Advisories/Advisory_2026_03_17_...
what is considered original? AI enhancements built into the camera will be part of the original?
I imagine if these cameras are adding or remove furniture, appliances or modifying flooring or the landscaping via AI it will be a problem.
Edit: also if it becomes a big problem, in the future the law could be changed so that the real estate agent becomes liable to cover the cost of upgrading the property to match the altered image.
4 replies →
It’s pretty much always been against the rules of the mls to use altered photos. Pre ai, people would sometimes get busted for making grass where there was none, or making walls with cracks a solid color. It’s not allowed to alter condition of property.
Staging and virtual staging (including sky replacement and removal of trash cans) are allowed so long as they don’t alter the true nature of the salable property.
I am surprised that AI hasn’t been policed more. Probably they just don’t have the ops for it.
Wouldn't that fall under existing false advertising laws, if you're putting fake/altered images in the listing?
It should, I would assume. But for some reason, it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to.
Pretty soon they'll take the stickers off mowers warning people to not put their hand under it while it's running.
The world isn't in a good place...
> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to
I'll preface this by saying that I don't agree with how things are working currently. But, the way the existing protections get enforced is by an individual or group of individuals filing lawsuits.
Our regulatory agencies have either been completely gutted by DOGE, or just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement, so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.
Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design, because bringing suit is an expensive and time consuming process and naturally locks out the people harmed the most by these violations. Its the same method by which slumlords/bad landlords get away with so many blatant violations of the various landlord/tenant laws; their tenants can't afford the lawsuits and the lawyers to protect themselves.
The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.
26 replies →
> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to.
This is one of the benefits Realtors(tm) and other licensing boards (lawyers etc) like to tout - we have a code of ethics, we self-regulate, you are safer with them than with Joe Agent, blah blah. You see how that goes.
I mean, what’s the problem with taking such stickers off? I’d love if it we had fewer retarded warnings. And I fail to see how they have anything to do with enforcing consumer protections.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Trump Mobile did the same with the false advertising of their phone, and that’s apparently okay.
> that’s apparently okay
Everything is "okay" with Trump. This social experiment got out of hand long ago. I mean come on, if we (as a society) allowed and okayed pedophilic tendencies, why do we keep looking for the lowest point on the bar? I'm pretty sure, Trump can consume human flesh on live TV and we'd just shrug it off and forget that even happened two weeks later.
It seems the solution could be quite simple.
Basically you buy/rent whatever was advertised, and if reality doesn't match, welp thats a defect the seller/landlord must fix at their own expense.
Room shows a vent but in reality there isn't one? Well, the seller has to install it or cover the costs of what an installation would cost.
That only works if the fix is cheaper than their lawyer. You’ll have to sue.
If you do sue and it’s a rental, good luck renting ever again. You’ll never pass the background checks.
This same thing happened to me almost 20 years ago without AI. The pictures were all of another identical apartment in the building.
When we went there to see the one we’d actually be renting, it was clear it hadn’t been cleaned in years, doors were off the hinges, counters had holes burned in them, stove was kicked in, etc.
Ran fast from that “deal”.
It already is in a lot of jurisdictions for photo-shopping photos.
Doctoring a photo slightly to make an area look larger, or just using a wide-angle lens though it can cause visible distortion. Removing unsightly poles, signs, trees, neighbouring properties was also common.
Making the sky bluer and removing clouds is acceptable.
You can renovate your home to match an altered image, but you cant change the colour of the actual sky so in a sense that is “more false” advertising. :)
[flagged]
Quite a few times I've seen permanent light fixtures that don't exist, vents that don't exist, room sizes that are obviously implied to be much larger than reality (e.g. they show a full-size bed, but there's only like 4 feet of space in that location), etc.
I don't particularly mind fake furniture, but if it's very much not to scale I think it's pushing "probably fraud". And when permanent fixtures are fabricated, "blatant fraud, penalize immediately, revoke license on repeats". Using an automated tool does not absolve you of consequences, particularly one nigh-universally well-known to fabricate things.
Oh, and little touches like an ugly fence being replaced by a sweeping view of a beach or a mountain range.
1 reply →
I was seeing the fake light fixtures in listing photos at least four years ago.
Fake furniture is bad enough (the scale issue you mention is the main problem) but fake parts of the house should definitely be illegal.
What, after all, is a bit of light fraud, if it saves an estate agent some time?
I can’t tell through text if you’re being sarcastic or not. So I’ll add some context for fun. Ran into this a few weeks ago apartment shopping with a friend. AI images of multiple apartments had:
- Relocated the sink from the back counter to the kitchen island.
- Added outlets that didn’t exist.
- Displayed furniture layouts that were not possible in the actual space. That couch looks great in that spot, except when you explore further you realize it’s sitting right up against the master bedroom’s door.
To that last point, no stager would lay it out that way because anyone viewing the apartment would take them to task for you know… having to drag a couch out of the way to open their bedroom door. Staging layouts have always been more pretty than practical but AI staging regularly puts functionally DOA layouts on display.
As far as I’m concerned it’s disingenuous at best, and deception realistically. The process is broken while this slop is in there.
I think the real issue here is lack of progress in AR technology. Tenants may be disappointed by the difference between marketing material and reality, but that can be easily solved by AR glasses that the tenants can wear 24/7 to make the apartment look just like in marketing material, perhaps for a small monthly subscription fee. It's cheaper than renovation, that's for sure.
Mark Zuckerberg should take note.
Now you're thinking like a silicon valley founder! Brilliant! Call the company "Lipstyk" as in the old phrase about lipstick on a pig.
I'm not sure if you're being serious but it should be illegal because they're producing images that are often not physically possible. At least if an agent stages an apartment with real furniture they are doing something a tenant really could do. But these AI images tend to change the physical dimensions of a room, use images of furniture that don't make sense dimensionally, shift the "natural" light of the room in a way that the sun will never provide and sometimes even change the view through the windows of the room.
I think their last sentence is a pretty clear indicator that they were not being serious.
1 reply →
‘Catfishing is fine’
Honestly, given the dangerously unmitigated power of Claude Mythos, we should really look into arresting the people who have failed to ask Claude to cure cancer already.
As a rule of thumb, if it is just replacing staging, I don’t have an issue with it. A staged apartment also isn’t “real” so if the AI isn’t adding windows and outlets that don’t exist it’s functionally equivalent to staging.
Most real estate agents are going to stage a house or condo for real regardless because people are really going to go there, not just look at pictures online or show up with a VR headset. So in practice this is only going to affect rental units that are not staged.
I imagine this is a much larger problem in high turnover rental markets.
Fraud is not the same as productivity buddy
The circa 2026 tech industry c-suite crowd respectfully, but vigorously, disagrees.
It.... took me awhile to register that sarcasm. Bravo.
This is satire, correct?
/s?