Streaming viewers in California will no longer have to lunge for the remote when an ad break hits. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 576, a bill that requires video streaming services to keep commercial ad volume at or below the level of the surrounding content. The rule takes effect on July 1, 2026, and it applies to any streaming platform serving California consumers. By anchoring compliance to the same federal technical standards that already govern broadcast and cable TV, the law fills a gap that has existed since Congress passed the CALM Act in 2010.
How SB 576 closes the streaming loophole the CALM Act left open
The federal CALM Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. Section 621, directed the FCC to adopt the ATSC A/85 loudness measurement standard for broadcasters, cable operators, and other multichannel video providers. Streaming services were not covered. An Assembly committee analysis described this as a loophole that allowed internet-delivered video to run ads at whatever volume the platform chose, while traditional TV providers had to comply with strict loudness rules.
SB 576 eliminates that split treatment. The California bill text explicitly pegs compliance to FCC regulations adopted under the CALM Act, meaning streaming platforms must use the same loudness measurement techniques already spelled out in 47 CFR Section 73.682, which includes spot-check provisions the FCC uses to evaluate whether ads exceed program volume. In practical terms, a viewer watching an ad-supported tier on a major platform should hear commercials at the same relative volume as the show, not several decibels louder.
Because SB 576 references existing federal engineering standards instead of inventing its own, compliance is largely a matter of extending tools that many media companies already use for broadcast and cable feeds. Loudness meters, automated normalization software, and internal review processes are familiar to engineers who work with ATSC A/85. The main change is that these tools now have to be applied consistently to ad-supported streaming libraries and dynamically inserted commercials, not just linear TV channels.
State and federal bills pushing platforms toward a single standard
California is not acting alone. Illinois has introduced SB 3222, which proposes similar ad volume rules for streaming services tied to FCC CALM regulations, though with a later effective date. At the federal level, H.R. 7308, titled the Turn It Down Act, would extend CALM-style loudness requirements to all IP-delivered video nationwide.
This patchwork creates a compliance calculation for streaming companies. A platform that serves subscribers in California must meet the July 2026 deadline regardless of what happens in Congress. If Illinois finalizes its own version and other states follow, each new jurisdiction adds a layer of legal obligation. The cost of tracking and meeting varying state-by-state rules could easily exceed the expense of adopting a single loudness normalization standard across the entire platform. That economic logic suggests major services will roll out uniform volume controls well before any federal bill clears both chambers, simply because doing so is cheaper than maintaining separate technical configurations for different markets.
There is also a consumer-expectations angle. Once viewers in one large state experience quieter, more consistent ad breaks, subscribers elsewhere are likely to notice the difference and pressure platforms to match that standard. Streaming companies that operate nationally may see more reputational risk in maintaining a louder status quo than in voluntarily aligning with CALM-style limits everywhere.
Enforcement gaps and unanswered questions after July 2026
The law’s biggest open question is enforcement. SB 576 borrows federal technical benchmarks, but it does not create a new state-level agency to monitor loudness or spell out a detailed testing regime. Instead, it relies on familiar concepts: measured average loudness over time, comparison to adjacent programming, and documentation that platforms are using recognized tools and practices. How aggressively those concepts are applied will depend on how regulators and courts interpret the statute once complaints start arriving.
California already maintains a broad consumer protection framework, and residents can find agencies and complaint portals through the state’s main government site. SB 576 gives those agencies a clearer legal hook if viewers report that streaming ads are still blaring. But the statute does not guarantee that every loud commercial triggers a fine. As with the federal CALM rules, enforcement is likely to focus on patterns of noncompliance rather than isolated glitches, especially where platforms can show that they have adopted reasonable loudness controls.
Technical complexity adds another layer of uncertainty. Streaming ads are often inserted on the fly, with creative assets coming from multiple ad networks and third-party partners. Even with robust normalization, some individual spots may slip through at higher volumes. The key legal question will be whether companies have implemented systematic safeguards-such as automated loudness checks on incoming ad files and periodic audits of live streams-or whether they have simply relied on contractual promises from advertisers.
For viewers, the impact will be easier to judge than the legal fine print. If SB 576 works as intended, ad-supported streaming in California should start to feel more like regulated television: fewer jarring volume jumps, more predictable sound levels across shows and commercial breaks, and less incentive to keep the remote in hand. If it does not, the next wave of debate is likely to center not on whether streaming ads should be quieter, but on how far states and Congress are willing to go to make platforms turn them down.
