California SB 942Verda playbook Verda API

SB 942 · Vendors compared

SB 942 watermarking vendors, compared against the statute

Updated 16 October 2026. California SB 942, as amended by AB 853, SB 1000 and AB 2713. Not legal advice.

Vendors compared

Scored against the statute, not a brochure

RequirementVerdaSynthID (Google)Adobe Content AuthenticityMeta AudioSeal / Video Seal
Available to a covered provider that is not the vendorYesApplied inside Google products; not offered as a third-party service per Google's siteYes; Content Authenticity API for enterprises, via Firefly ServicesYes, self-hosted
Latent disclosure in image, audio and videoAll threeAll three, within Google productsImage; video and audio planned per companyAudio, video, image
Five statutory fields resolvable from the markYes, payload plus resolver; created or altered comes from your integrationNot publishedWatermark links back to the C2PA manifest; fields are whatever the manifest holdsPayload bits only; you build the resolver
Five more rows
RequirementVerdaSynthID (Google)Adobe Content AuthenticityMeta AudioSeal / Video Seal
Free public disclosure verification tool with upload, URL and APIYes, hosted or white-labelPortal announced; API per GoogleFree inspect tool and Chrome extension; watermark lookup APIYou host it
Licensee termination supportPer-licensee keys; revoke in the consolen/aNot statedBuild your own
No personal information in tool outputYes, by design; identity tier never returned publiclyNot publishedNot publishedn/a
Standards-compliant manifest (AB 853 and AB 2713 platforms)Writes C2PA alongside the markGoogle is a C2PA member; per productYes; Adobe co-founded C2PANo
Optional verified identity (AB 853 digital signatures)Yes, verified identity, optionalNoYes, LinkedIn verification in the appNo

Where Verda is weaker: no text modality; no open-source encoder for teams that want to self-host the whole stack; fewer public deployments than Adobe or Google. Where Verda is stronger for a covered provider specifically: one API across the three modalities SB 942 covers, the five fields resolvable from the mark, a disclosure verification tool that meets every line of § 22757.2 out of the box, and per-licensee keys that turn the 72-hour licensee duty into a console action.

Where Verda is stronger

  • One API for image, audio and video
  • All five fields resolve from the mark
  • Per-licensee keys for the 72-hour duty

Where Verda is weaker

  • No text modality
  • No open-source encoder
  • Fewer public deployments than Adobe or Google

Vendor cells cite each company's site as of 17 September 2026 (Adobe: 7 October 2026).

FAQ

Common questions

Which watermarking vendors can a covered provider use for SB 942?

Of the vendors compared, Verda, Adobe Content Authenticity (the Content Authenticity API for enterprises, via Firefly Services) and Meta AudioSeal / Video Seal (self-hosted) are available to a covered provider that is not the vendor. SynthID is applied inside Google products and is not offered as a third-party service, per Google's site.

Which SB 942 vendors cover image, audio and video?

Verda covers all three, and SynthID covers all three within Google products. Meta AudioSeal / Video Seal covers audio, video and image. Adobe Content Authenticity covers image, with video and audio planned per the company.

Where is Verda weaker than other SB 942 vendors?

No text modality, no open-source encoder for teams that want to self-host the whole stack, and fewer public deployments than Adobe or Google.

How current is this SB 942 vendor comparison?

Each row is a requirement taken from the statute. Vendor cells cite each company's site as of 17 September 2026 (Adobe: 7 October 2026).

Ship it

Compliant outputs, one API.