Loud Commercials Muted by CA Law

California Sounds the Alarm: New Law Silences Blaring Streaming Adverts

A groundbreaking new law enacted in California is designed to bring tranquillity to living rooms by compelling streaming providers to reduce the sound levels of excessively loud commercials. This new rule, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, specifically targets the jarring audio spikes during advertisement breaks that have become a common grievance for viewers in the age of on-demand entertainment. The measure extends existing federal regulations, which for over a decade have governed the sound levels of commercials on traditional television and cable channels, to the now-dominant streaming platforms.

The legislation, known as Senate Bill 576, prohibits streaming services from transmitting commercial advertisements with audio exceeding the sound level of the programme the viewer is watching. Taking effect from 1 July 2026, this law directly addresses a regulatory gap that has persisted as streaming giants like Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and Netflix have risen to prominence. Since California serves as the corporate base for many of these influential companies, this state-level decision is poised to create a ripple effect, potentially establishing a new industry standard across the nation.

The Politics of Loud Commercials

The move has been widely praised by consumer advocates and viewers who have long complained about the disruptive nature of loud adverts. The issue is not merely one of minor irritation; for many, it is a significant disruption to their home environment. The story that spurred the bill into existence highlights this personal impact, centring on a legislative aide whose infant daughter was repeatedly woken from her sleep by the sudden blare of commercials.

However, the path to this new regulation was not without its challenges. The powerful entertainment industry, represented by organizations including the MPA, initially voiced strong opposition. They argued that the technical infrastructure of streaming services makes it far more complex to control advertisement volume compared to traditional broadcasters. Despite these initial objections, a compromise was reached, leading to a law that, while popular, comes with its own set of complexities regarding enforcement and ultimate effectiveness.

The Genesis of a Quieter Commercial Break

The driving force behind this legislative change was a surprisingly common domestic drama. State Senator Tom Umberg introduced Senate Bill 576 after hearing from Zach Keller, his legislative director, about the frustration of having his sleeping baby, Samantha, awakened by booming streaming advertisements. This personal anecdote resonated with many, illustrating a shared experience in households across the state and country.

Senator Umberg described the measure as a "quality of life" issue, a simple measure to restore some peace and quiet to California's homes. He explained the inspiration came from thinking about baby Samantha and the plight of every parent who, after finally getting a child to sleep, has their work undone by a disruptive streaming advertisement. This narrative helped to galvanise support for the legislation, casting it as a common-sense solution to a modern-day annoyance.

The bill's journey through the California legislature saw bipartisan support, a testament to the universal nature of the complaint against loud commercials. Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, remarked after approving the measure that the administration had clearly heard the wishes of state residents. He said it was apparent they do not want commercial breaks to be audibly louder than the show they were watching.

This groundswell of support highlights a growing public demand for a more considerate and less intrusive advertising experience. As streaming services increasingly adopt ad-supported subscription tiers, the issue of advertisement volume has become more pronounced, affecting millions of viewers. The story of a sleeping baby, therefore, became the catalyst for a much larger conversation about consumer rights in the digital age.

Closing a Regulatory Loophole

For more than a decade, a federal law has been in place to tackle the issue of loud commercials on traditional television. A federal statute, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act—also called the CALM Act—was signed into law in 2010. It directed the nation's regulator, the FCC, to formulate regulations ensuring advertisements maintain an audio level consistent with the programming.

This act was a direct response to longstanding consumer complaints about the jarring shift in volume during commercial breaks. It required broadcasters and pay-TV providers to adopt a technical standard, known as ATSC A/85, to measure and control audio loudness. Following the implementation of the CALM Act's regulations in 2012, the number of consumer complaints to the FCC regarding excessive ad volume saw a significant decrease.

However, the original CALM Act reflected its era. At the time, streaming providers were only just emerging and did not feature the advertising models that are common today. Consequently, the law did not extend to these burgeoning platforms, creating a significant loophole in consumer protection. As streaming became the dominant form of media consumption for many households, this gap in the regulations became increasingly apparent.

California's new law, SB 576, is a direct attempt to close this loophole at the state level. It specifically obligates streaming platforms to adhere to the same principles and technical standards outlined in the federal CALM Act. This move represents a crucial step in modernising media regulations to keep pace with the evolution of technology and viewing habits, ensuring that consumer protections are not left behind in the transition from traditional to digital media.

The Technical Challenge of Taming Volume

The streaming industry's initial resistance to the new Californian law was rooted in the fundamental differences between how traditional television and streaming services deliver advertisements. For broadcasters and cable companies, advertisements are typically integrated directly into the programming feed, allowing for a centralised control over the audio levels of the entire stream. This makes it relatively straightforward to ensure that both the programme and the commercials adhere to the same volume standards.

Streaming platforms, however, operate on a much more complex and individualised system known as dynamic ad insertion (DAI). This technology allows for different adverts to be shown to different viewers, even when they are watching the same programme simultaneously. These ads are often sourced from a multitude of third-party ad networks and are stitched into the video stream in real-time, just before it reaches the viewer's device.

This decentralised and dynamic process presents a significant technical hurdle for controlling volume. A streaming platform may not have direct control over the audio levels of an advertisement that is being served from an external network. This point was explained to lawmakers by Melissa Patack, representing the Motion Picture Association. She noted that when a user selects a program, they are calling up a digital file that is paired with advertising in real time, and the platform may not be able to control a specific ad's loudness.

This complexity formed the core of the industry's argument that applying the same regulations as broadcast television to streaming services was not a simple or straightforward task. They contended that the unique architecture of online advertising required a different approach, and that a one-size-fits-all regulation could be difficult, if not impossible, to implement effectively across the diverse landscape of streaming platforms and their advertising partners.

A Compromise Reached, but Questions of Enforcement Remain

The issues brought forward by the Streaming Innovation Alliance and the Motion Picture Association did not fall on deaf ears. In a crucial amendment to the bill, lawmakers added a provision that prohibits private citizens or groups from filing lawsuits against streaming providers for violations of the new law. This change significantly reduced the legal risk for the companies and was instrumental in shifting the industry groups from a position of opposition to one of neutrality.

This compromise allowed the bill to move forward with broad support, but it also introduced questions about how the new regulations will be enforced. The law itself does not outline specific penalties for non-compliance. Instead, enforcement is left to the discretion of the California Attorney General and district attorneys, who would need to identify a pattern of violations before taking action.

This reliance on consumer complaints and potential government action, rather than direct financial penalties or the threat of private lawsuits, has led some to question the law's ultimate effectiveness. Critics have pointed out that without a clear and robust enforcement mechanism, the law may lack the teeth necessary to force all streaming platforms to make the significant technical adjustments required for compliance.

The enforcement model used by the Federal Communications Commission for the original CALM Act offers a potential model. The FCC relies on consumer complaints to identify patterns of non-compliance and can then launch investigations and impose penalties. However, the number of grievances regarding jarringly loud advertisements filed with the FCC has been on the rise again in recent years, suggesting that even with an established federal framework, enforcement can be a challenge. It remains to be seen how proactively California's authorities will pursue violations of SB 576 when it comes into effect.

A De Facto National Standard?

Despite the questions surrounding its enforcement, the significance of California's new law extends far beyond the state's borders. As the heart of the American entertainment industry and a global hub for technology, California's legislative decisions often have a powerful, de facto influence on national policy and industry practices.

Many of the world's largest streaming companies, including Netflix and Disney, are based in California. It is often more practical and cost-effective for these global companies to adopt a single, uniform standard across all their operations rather than creating a patchwork of different rules for different regions. Consequently, it is highly probable that the adjustments made to adhere to California's law will be rolled out to all subscribers, regardless of their location.

This phenomenon, where a large and influential state's regulations effectively set the standard for the entire country, has been observed in other areas of consumer protection and environmental regulation. In this instance, California's move to regulate streaming ad volume could spur a nationwide shift in industry practices, even in the absence of new federal legislation.

Furthermore, the action taken by California could increase the pressure on the US Congress to update the federal CALM Act so that it specifically covers streaming platforms. There have already been attempts to introduce such legislation, and California's decisive move may provide the momentum needed for a renewed federal effort. For long-suffering viewers, this could mean that a quieter and more pleasant streaming experience is on the horizon, not just in California, but across the entire country.

The Science of Sound: Measuring Loudness

At the heart of the debate over loud commercials is the complex science of how we perceive sound. The technical standard at the core of both the federal CALM Act and California's new law is the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice. This standard provides a sophisticated method for measuring and controlling the loudness of digital audio, moving beyond simple peak volume levels to a more nuanced understanding of how the human ear experiences sound.

The A/85 standard is based on an international algorithm, ITU-R BS.1770, which measures the average loudness of a piece of audio over time. This is crucial because a commercial can have brief moments of high volume, such as a sudden sound effect, but still have a lower average loudness than a segment of dialogue that is consistently loud. The regulations, therefore, target the overall average loudness of an advertisement, requiring it to be consistent with the average loudness of the surrounding programme.

This approach is designed to prevent the jarring sensation of a commercial that has a much higher volume than the program content. However, it also provides a degree of flexibility for sound engineers. As long as the average loudness of a commercial remains within the prescribed limits, there can still be variations in the dynamic range of the audio. This allows for creative use of sound in advertising, while still protecting viewers from sustained and excessive volume.

For streaming services, complying with the A/85 standard will require the implementation of new technologies and workflows. They will need to be able to measure the loudness of incoming ad content from various sources and potentially normalise the audio in real-time before it is delivered to the viewer. This is a significant technical undertaking, but one that broadcasters have been successfully managing for years.

A Rising Tide of Consumer Complaints

The legislative action in California and the renewed attention on the issue at the federal level are not happening in a vacuum. They are a direct response to a growing chorus of complaints from consumers who are fed up with the intrusive nature of loud commercials. A "troubling jump" in the number of complaints it has received about advertisement volume in recent years has been reported by the Federal Communications Commission.

In 2024 alone, the FCC received at least 1,700 complaints related to loud commercials, a significant increase from previous years. A substantial portion of these new complaints are directed at streaming services, which were not covered by the CALM Act. This surge in public feedback has clearly signalled to lawmakers and regulators that the existing framework is no longer sufficient to address the realities of modern media consumption.

This increase in complaints can be attributed to several factors. The proliferation of ad-supported streaming tiers means that more people are being exposed to commercials on these platforms than ever before. Furthermore, the rise of on-demand viewing often leads to a more engaged and less passive viewing experience, making sudden and loud interruptions feel even more jarring.

The FCC has taken notice of this trend and has initiated its own process to re-examine its rules on commercial loudness. This federal review, combined with the recent legislation passed in California, indicates a significant shift in the regulatory landscape. The era of unregulated ad volume on streaming platforms appears to be coming to an end, driven by the collective voice of annoyed and frustrated viewers.

The Industry's Path to Compliance

With the 1 July 2026 deadline for compliance with California's new law on the horizon, streaming services are now faced with the task of adapting their complex advertising systems. While the industry initially expressed concerns about the feasibility of this task, there is a general consensus that the technological solutions do exist. Broadcasters have been successfully adhering to the CALM Act's rules for over a decade, and many of the same principles and technologies can be applied to the streaming environment.

One of the key technologies that will likely be employed is server-side audio normalisation. This involves processing the audio of advertisements as they are received from third-party networks, gauging their average loudness using the ATSC A/85 standard, and then adjusting the volume to match that of the main programme content before the combined stream is delivered to the viewer. This would allow for a centralised control over volume, even in a dynamic ad insertion environment.

Some streaming services have already indicated that they are taking steps to address the issue of loud commercials. For example, Netflix has stated that it is already in compliance with the stipulations of the CALM Act. However, for the industry as a whole, the new law will necessitate a more standardised and rigorous approach to audio management.

The two-year grace period before the law takes effect provides a window for streaming companies to develop and implement these solutions. It also allows time for the industry to collaborate on best practices and technical standards to ensure a smooth and consistent transition. While there may be initial costs and complexities involved, the ultimate outcome is expected to be a more pleasant and less disruptive viewing experience for everyone.

A Victory for the Viewer

Ultimately, the passage of California's new law represents a significant victory for the consumer. It is a clear and direct response to a widespread and persistent complaint, and it demonstrates a willingness on the part of lawmakers to extend consumer protections into the ever-evolving world of digital media. The days of fumbling for the remote control to mute a blaring commercial may soon be a thing of the past.

The law is a testament to the power of a single, relatable story to effect meaningful change. The image of a sleeping baby being startled awake by a loud advertisement is a powerful one, and it served to galvanise a movement that has resulted in a tangible improvement to the daily lives of millions of people. It is a reminder that even in an age of complex technology and powerful corporate interests, the concerns of the individual can still be heard.

While the full impact of the law will not be felt until it comes into effect in 2026, its passage has already sent a clear message to the streaming industry: the viewer experience matters. The focus is now shifting from a purely advertiser-centric model to one that seeks to strike a better balance between commercial interests and the comfort and enjoyment of the audience.

As other states, and potentially the federal government, look to follow California's lead, we may be on the cusp of a new era of more considerate and less intrusive advertising. For anyone who has ever been jolted from their seat by a sudden and deafening commercial, that is a future worth looking forward to. The quiet revolution against loud adverts has begun, and it seems that peace and tranquillity may finally be returning to our living rooms.