Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026)

Deepfake laws vary widely across the United States. As of 2026, at least 45 states have enacted some form of law covering sexual deepfakes, election deepfakes, or AI voice cloning, with the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) providing a national baseline for nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. This guide covers all three legal buckets for every state and DC.
What Is a Deepfake, and What Laws Apply?
A deepfake is media (video, audio, or still images) in which artificial intelligence replaces or synthesizes a real person's face, voice, or likeness to make them appear to say or do something they never did. The term comes from the deep learning techniques used to train these models.
Three distinct bodies of law now govern deepfakes, and states have moved at different speeds on each.
Bucket 1: Sexual deepfakes (NCII) and AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Nonconsensual intimate image (NCII) laws, sometimes called revenge-porn statutes, were originally written for real photographs and videos. Most states have now amended them to cover AI-generated synthetic content. AI-generated CSAM (depictions of minors that were never filmed) is separately covered by federal law () and by most state CSAM statutes.
Bucket 2: Election and political deepfakes. At least 28 states require disclosure or prohibit distribution of deepfake political content near elections. These laws face recurring First Amendment challenges; courts must weigh election integrity against the right to create satirical or parody content.
Bucket 3: AI voice cloning and digital likeness (right of publicity). A growing number of states have extended their right-of-publicity laws to cover AI-generated replicas of a person's voice or visual likeness used for commercial or harmful purposes. Tennessee's ELVIS Act is the most-cited model.
Many situations touch more than one bucket. An AI-generated deepfake of a candidate used in a political ad raises both election-law and likeness-rights issues. A voice clone used to commit fraud may trigger TCPA rules, state identity-theft statutes, and the FTC's impersonation rule simultaneously.
Federal Deepfake Law
TAKE IT DOWN Act: Enacted

The most significant federal development is the TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law on May 19, 2025 (Public Law 119-12). It is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate deepfakes.
The Act makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison for adult victims and three years when minors are depicted. Critically, platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of receiving notice from a victim; the compliance deadline for that takedown infrastructure was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces platform compliance.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act matters most in the nine states (including Missouri and New Mexico) that still lack adult NCII deepfake laws of their own. For those victims, the federal law is now the primary avenue for platform removal and criminal referral.
FCC AI Robocall Ruling: Enacted
In February 2024, the FCC issued Order 24-17 declaring that AI-generated voices in robocalls constitute "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227). This means voice-clone robocalls to any phone without prior express written consent are illegal nationwide. The ruling was triggered directly by the January 2024 fake-Biden robocall sent to New Hampshire voters ahead of the primary, a call the FCC later issued a $6 million fine for (finalized September 2024).
Federal CSAM Law: Enacted
Under (8)(B) (as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003), federal law covers computer-generated or AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. There is no First Amendment defense for indistinguishable material under the post-Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition framework. This applies even in states that have not explicitly amended their own CSAM statutes.
FTC Impersonation Rule: Enacted for Businesses
The FTC's Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses (16 C.F.R. Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses using AI voice cloning. The extension of the rule to individual impersonation remains a proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and is not yet final.
DEFIANCE Act and NO FAKES Act: Pending, Not Law
Two significant federal bills have been introduced but are not enacted as of June 2026:
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837 / H.R.3562, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes with liquidated damages of $150,000 (rising to $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). An earlier version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House before the end of the 118th Congress; the reintroduced S.1837 passed the Senate again by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House. See our DEFIANCE Act explainer for current status.
The NO FAKES Act (S.4591 / H.R.8915, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI digital replicas of a person's voice or visual likeness. It has not passed either chamber.
Deepfake Laws by State
The table below shows the enacted status of each of the three legal buckets for all 50 states and DC. Each state name links to the full state guide. "Yes" means an enacted law exists. "No" means no state law; federal law may still apply.
| State | Sexual deepfakes (NCII) | Election deepfakes | Voice / likeness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes (Ala. Code § 13A-6-240, as amended by Act 2024-98; Class A misd./Class C felony) | Yes (HB 172, 2024) | No state law |
| Alaska | No state law | No state law | No state law |
| Arizona | Yes (ARS 13-1425, Class 1 misdemeanor for AI images) | Yes (HB 2394, 2024) | No state law |
| Arkansas | Yes (Act 827, 2025, Class A misd/Class D felony + civil) | No state law | Yes (Act 159, 2025, AI voice/likeness) |
| California | Yes (Civ. Code 1708.86, civil + criminal) | Yes (AB 730 survives; AB 2839 permanently enjoined Aug 2025) | Yes (Civ. Code 3344, voice explicit) |
| Colorado | Yes (SB 25-288, eff. Aug 6, 2025) | Yes (HB 24-1147, eff. July 1, 2024) | No state law |
| Connecticut | Yes (PA 25-168, eff. Oct 2025, Class A misd/Class D felony) | No state law | No state law |
| Delaware | Yes (11 Del. C. 1335, Class A misd/Class G felony) | Yes (15 Del. C. 5145, 2024) | No state law |
| Washington DC | Partial (no explicit AI language) | No state law | No state law |
| Florida | Yes (, felony + civil) | Yes (HB 919 disclosure, 2024) | Partial (, no voice) |
| Georgia | No state law | No state law | No state law |
| Hawaii | No state law | No (Act 191 enjoined Jan 2026) | Partial (HRS 482B, scope unclear) |
| Idaho | Yes (Idaho Code 18-6606, misdemeanor/felony) | Yes (Idaho Code 67-6628A, FAIR Elections Act, 2024) | No state law |
| Illinois | Yes (720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 and 5/11-23.7) | No state law | Yes (765 ILCS 1075, digital replicas, eff. 2025) |
| Indiana | Yes (IC 35-45-4-8 + HB 1047, 2024) | Yes (IC 3-9-8-5, disclosure label required, 2024) | Yes (IC 32-36-1, voice explicit) |
| Iowa | Yes (Iowa Code 708.7 + HF 2240, 2024) | No state law | No state law |
| Kansas | Yes (KSA 21-6101(a)(8), felony) | No state law | No state law |
| Kentucky | No deepfake-specific law ( covers real images) | Yes (, civil remedy for candidates, eff. Mar 2025) | Partial (, public figures only, no voice) |
| Louisiana | Yes (La. R.S. 14:73.13, 10-30 yrs) | No (vetoed 2024) | Yes (La. R.S. 51:470.1, Toussaint Act, incl. voice) |
| Maine | Yes (17-A M.R.S. 511-A, 2025 amendment) | Yes (LD 517, eff. July 29, 2026) | No state law |
| Maryland | Yes (Crim. Law 3-809, eff. July 1, 2025) | Yes (SB 141, Elec. Law 16-905, eff. June 1, 2026) | No state law |
| Massachusetts | Yes (M.G.L. c. 265 § 43A, eff. Sept. 2024) | No (temporary 2024 law expired) | No state law |
| Michigan | Yes (PA 11/12 of 2025, misdemeanor/felony) | Yes (MCL 168.932f, eff. Feb 2024) | No state law |
| Minnesota | Yes (, 2023) | Yes (, First Amendment litigation ongoing) | Partial (covers sound recordings) |
| Mississippi | No state law | Yes (Miss. Code 97-13-47, 2024) | No state law |
| Missouri | No state law | No state law | No state law |
| Montana | Yes (HB 514 & SB 413, 2025; felony for repeat) | Yes (SB 25, 2025) | Yes (HB 513, eff. Jan 1, 2026, $50k/violation) |
| Nebraska | Yes (Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-3501 et seq.) | No (LB 615 postponed 2026) | No state law |
| Nevada | Yes (NRS 200.780, Category D felony, 2025) | Yes (AB 73, disclosure required, eff. 2026) | Yes (NRS 597.770, voice explicit) |
| New Hampshire | Yes (RSA 644:9-a + RSA 638:26-a, eff. Jan 2025) | Yes (HB 1596, 2024) | Yes (RSA 638:26-a covers audio deepfakes) |
| New Jersey | Yes (P.L. 2025 c. 40, signed Apr 2, 2025) | Yes (P.L. 2025 c. 40) | Yes (P.L. 2025 c. 40 covers sound recording) |
| New Mexico | No state law | Yes (HB 182 disclosure, eff. May 2024) | No state law |
| New York | Yes (Penal Law 245.15 + Civ. Rights Law 52-c) | Yes (Election Law amended 2024) | Yes (Civ. Rights Law 50-f; Civ. Rights Law 50-51) |
| North Carolina | Yes (NCGS 14-190.5A, Class H felony, 2024) | No state law | No state law |
| North Dakota | Yes (HB 1351, misdemeanor + $10k civil, 2025) | Yes (HB 1167, 2025) | No state law |
| Ohio | No state law | No state law | No state law |
| Oklahoma | Yes (Okla. Stat. 21-1040.13b, 2025) | No state law | Yes (12 O.S. 1449, voice explicit) |
| Oregon | Yes (ORS 163.472, misdemeanor; felony if repeat, eff. Jan 2026) | Yes (ORS 260.268, 2024) | No state law |
| Pennsylvania | Yes (18 Pa.C.S. 3131, Act 125 of 2024) | No state law | Yes (18 Pa.C.S. 4101.1, digital forgery, eff. Sept 2025) |
| Rhode Island | Yes (R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3, 2025) | Yes (ch. 17-30, signed July 2025) | No state law |
| South Carolina | Yes (H 3058, misdemeanor/felony, 2025) | No state law | No state law |
| South Dakota | Yes (SDCL 22-21-4, manipulated image) | Yes (SB 164, signed Mar 31, 2025) | No state law |
| Tennessee | Yes (Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1906, felony) | Yes (Pub. Ch. 625, signed Mar 26, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026) | Yes (ELVIS Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101, eff. July 1, 2024) |
| Texas | Yes (Tex. Penal Code 21.165, felony w/ prior) | Yes (Tex. Election Code 255.004, 2019, core survives challenge) | Yes (Tex. Prop. Code ch. 26, deceased voice) |
| Utah | Yes (Utah Code 76-5b-205, misdemeanor/felony) | Yes (Utah Code 20A-11-1104, 2024) | No state law |
| Vermont | Yes (13 V.S.A. 2606, digitized images) | Yes (S.23, 2026) | No state law |
| Virginia | Yes (Va. Code 18.2-386.2, since 2019) | No state law | No state law |
| Washington | Yes (RCW 9A.86.030, HB 1999, 2024) | Yes (RCW 42.62, 2023) | Yes (RCW 63.60 as amended by SSB 5886, eff. June 11, 2026; HB 1205 criminal, 2025) |
| West Virginia | Yes (W.Va. Code 61-8-28a, SB 198, 2025) | No state law | No state law |
| Wisconsin | Yes (, Act 34 of 2025) | Yes (Wis. Stat. 11.1303, 2024) | Partial (, no voice) |
| Wyoming | Yes (Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306; HB 102/6-4-307 signed Mar 2026, eff. July 1, 2026) | No state law | No state law |
AI Voice Cloning Laws
The ELVIS Act: The National Model

Tennessee's Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act (the ELVIS Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) was the first state law to extend a right of publicity specifically to AI simulations of a person's voice. "Voice" is defined as a "readily identifiable sound" whether it is the person's actual voice or a simulation of it. The law reaches not just users of unauthorized voice replicas but also anyone who knowingly distributes a tool whose "primary purpose or primary effect" is to produce such unauthorized replicas.
Enforcement is civil and criminal: victims may seek injunctions, impoundment, actual damages plus profits, and attorney fees under Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1105. A Class A misdemeanor criminal penalty applies under 47-25-1108. Postmortem rights extend 10 years after death.
At least seven states have enacted comparable protections since 2024. Montana (HB 513, effective January 1, 2026) created property rights over name, voice, and visual likeness with damages up to $50,000 per incident. Arkansas (Act 159, effective February 25, 2025) amended its Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Protection Act to explicitly cover AI reproduction of voice for commercial purposes, one of the first to add a specific AI amendment to an existing right-of-publicity statute. Washington (SSB 5886, effective June 11, 2026) updated the state's Personality Rights Act (RCW 63.60) to cover "forged digital likenesses" including AI voice, raising the civil penalty to $3,000 plus noneconomic damages. Our Washington digital likeness explainer covers that law in detail.
Pennsylvania took a different approach with Act 35 of 2025 (18 Pa.C.S. 4101.1, effective September 5, 2025). Rather than a right-of-publicity model, Pennsylvania created a criminal offense called "digital forgery": creating or distributing a forged digital likeness (including audio of a person's voice) as genuine with intent to defraud or injure. It is a first-degree misdemeanor escalating to a third-degree felony in fraud schemes.
Indiana (IC 32-36-1) and Nevada (NRS 597.770) have older right-of-publicity statutes that explicitly list "voice" among the protected personality elements, making them applicable to voice cloning for commercial use even without a specific AI amendment.
Illinois extended its Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075) via HB 4875 (signed August 2024, effective January 1, 2025) to add "digital replica," "generative artificial intelligence," and "unauthorized digital replica" as defined terms, prohibiting distribution of works containing unauthorized digital replicas while providing safe harbors for cloud providers lacking actual knowledge.
Illinois also has BIPA. The Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/) requires written consent before a private entity collects or uses biometric identifiers, including voiceprints. BIPA's $1,000-to-$5,000 per-violation damages have driven some of the largest privacy-related class actions in the country and apply to any AI voice-data collection from Illinois residents.
FCC Robocall Rule
The FCC's February 2024 ruling (Order 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the TCPA applies nationwide. Marketers, political groups, and fraudsters alike are now barred from using cloned voices in phone calls without prior express consent.
Election Deepfakes and the First Amendment
At least 28 states have enacted laws restricting deepfakes in election communications. The approaches split between two models: disclosure (requiring a prominent statement that content was AI-generated) and prohibition (banning deceptive deepfakes outright, usually within a window before an election). Prohibition-only laws carry higher First Amendment risk.
California's AB 2839 (2024) was the most ambitious election deepfake ban, but a U.S. District Court struck the law down in its entirety and permanently enjoined it in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta. The court held that the prohibition on realistic AI-generated political content (even absent a disclaimer) was a content-based speech restriction not supported by a compelling government interest without narrowing. California's earlier, narrower AB 730 (2019) disclosure-only law survived scrutiny.
Minnesota's (enacted 2023, effective August 1, 2023) prohibits spreading a deepfake within 90 days before an election with intent to damage a candidate. It has faced First Amendment challenges; as of February 2026, a preliminary injunction was denied and the litigation continues. The state's election deepfake law remains in force pending appeal.
Texas enacted the first election deepfake law in the nation in 2019 (Tex. Election Code 255.004), but a subsection was later ruled unconstitutionally overbroad. The core prohibition on creating and publishing a deepfake video within 30 days of an election with intent to injure a candidate was upheld.
Louisiana's governor vetoed its election deepfake bill in July 2024 on First Amendment grounds. Hawaii's 2024 election deepfake law (Act 191, SB 2687) was enacted but permanently enjoined on January 30, 2026 by a federal court as an unconstitutional restriction on political speech (Babylon Bee v. Hawaii). The pattern suggests that broad prohibition models (particularly those lacking a clear "intent to deceive" or narrow temporal-window requirement) face the most constitutional vulnerability.
Pure disclosure requirements, by contrast, have generally survived challenge. Utah (SB 131), Colorado (HB 24-1147), Oregon (SB 1571), and Wisconsin (Act 123) all use disclosure models.
What to Do If You Are the Victim of a Deepfake
Step 1: Request platform removal. Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate images (including AI-generated deepfakes) within 48 hours of a verified victim notice (effective May 19, 2026). File notices directly through each platform's reporting channel — see how to file a Take It Down Act request for the exact steps — and reference the Act by name if the platform is slow to respond.

Step 2: Document everything. Take screenshots with timestamps of where the content appears and any communications from the person responsible. Documentation preserves evidence for criminal and civil proceedings.
Step 3: Report to law enforcement. If you are in a state with an enacted NCII deepfake law, file a report with local police or the state attorney general. Even in states without specific deepfake laws, federal law (TAKE IT DOWN Act for intimate images; 18 U.S.C. 2256 for CSAM) applies, and the FBI has jurisdiction over federal crimes.
Step 4: Pursue civil remedies. States including California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and others provide explicit private rights of action with statutory damages. Consult an attorney about the statute of limitations in your state; some run as short as one year from discovery.
Step 5: Contact the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. The CCRI (cybercivilrights.org) provides crisis helpline support and can help identify legal resources in your state.
If the deepfake involves election interference, contact your state elections authority and, if the candidate is depicted, their campaign's legal team, as many states give candidates standing to seek emergency injunctive relief.
How Deepfake Laws Interact With Recording Laws
Deepfake creation and recording consent are distinct legal frameworks, but they intersect in important ways. Recording a conversation without consent may itself be illegal under your state's wiretapping statute; see United States recording laws by state for a full breakdown. But if someone uses an AI tool to clone your voice from a legally-made recording, the recording-consent question is separate from the voice-cloning question.

Meeting transcription tools and AI note-takers add another layer. If an AI meeting recorder captures your voice and that audio is later used to train a voice-cloning model, you may have claims under BIPA (if you're in Illinois), your state's right-of-publicity statute, or the FTC Impersonation Rule, regardless of whether the original recording was lawful. Our guide to AI meeting recording laws covers consent requirements for AI-assisted recording tools specifically.
For a broader look at how AI intersects with state law, see our AI laws by state hub, and for data privacy frameworks that often govern AI data collection, see data privacy laws by state.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Deepfake laws are changing rapidly; confirm current statutes with a licensed attorney or the official state legislature website for your jurisdiction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are deepfakes illegal in the US?
Creating or distributing a deepfake is illegal in many circumstances but not all. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of any person. More than 40 states add their own criminal or civil penalties. Deepfakes used for clear satire or parody retain some First Amendment protection, but distributing a sexual deepfake of a real person without consent is illegal under federal law and the laws of most states.
What states have deepfake laws?
As of June 2026, at least 45 states have enacted at least one deepfake law. The most comprehensive coverage (all three buckets of sexual deepfakes, election deepfakes, and voice or likeness rights) exists in Tennessee, California, New York, Washington, New Jersey, and Montana. Missouri and New Mexico are the most notable states without an adult NCII deepfake law; Alaska, Georgia, Ohio, and Hawaii also lack most deepfake-specific protections.
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone?
It depends on the purpose. Creating a deepfake for clear satire or parody is generally protected speech. Creating a deepfake to distribute nonconsensual intimate images is a federal crime (TAKE IT DOWN Act) and a state crime in more than 40 states. Creating election deepfakes without disclosure is illegal in at least 28 states. Creating AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256) regardless of whether a real child was used.
Can you sue someone for making a deepfake of you?
Yes, in many states. California (Civ. Code 1708.86), Colorado (SB 25-288), Florida (Fla. Stat. 836.13), Michigan (PA 11/12 of 2025), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 617.262), New Hampshire (RSA 507:8-j), New Jersey (P.L. 2025 c. 40), and New York (Civ. Rights Law 52-c) all provide explicit private rights of action. States with right-of-publicity statutes covering voice (including California, Indiana, Illinois, Nevada, and Tennessee) allow suits for unauthorized commercial use of AI-cloned voice or likeness.
Are AI voice clones illegal?
AI voice cloning without consent is illegal in several contexts. The FCC has ruled that AI voice-clone robocalls violate the TCPA nationwide. The FTC's Impersonation Rule bars AI voice cloning used to impersonate businesses or government agencies. States including Tennessee (ELVIS Act), California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington have laws that prohibit unauthorized commercial or harmful use of a cloned voice. Using a voice clone to commit fraud can also trigger general fraud and identity-theft statutes in every state.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated 'digital forgeries.' Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice. The FTC enforces compliance. Criminal penalties reach two years in prison for adult victims and three years for minor victims.
What is the ELVIS Act?
The ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is Tennessee's law extending the right of publicity to AI simulations of a person's voice. It was the first state law specifically written to address AI voice cloning. It protects any 'readily identifiable sound' including simulations of a person's voice, covers tools whose primary purpose is creating unauthorized replicas, and provides civil damages plus a Class A misdemeanor criminal penalty. Several states have modeled subsequent voice-cloning laws on the ELVIS Act.
Is deepfake porn illegal?
Yes, in most of the country. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes nonconsensual intimate deepfakes nationwide. More than 40 states add separate criminal and civil remedies. Notable penalties: Louisiana (10-30 years), Florida (felony plus civil damages minimum $10,000), Kansas (person felony), Nevada (Category D felony, 1-4 years), and Delaware (Class G felony). A handful of states (including Missouri, New Mexico, Alaska, Georgia, Ohio, and Hawaii) still lack adult NCII deepfake statutes, but federal law still applies in those states.
Are election deepfakes illegal?
Election deepfakes without proper disclosure are illegal in at least 28 states. Laws vary: some prohibit deceptive deepfakes outright (Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi), while others require prominent disclosure that content is AI-generated (Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Wisconsin). All face ongoing First Amendment scrutiny. California's broad prohibition in AB 2839 was permanently enjoined in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta; its older disclosure-only law survived. Texas enacted the nation's first election deepfake law in 2019. About 22 states have no election deepfake law as of June 2026.
Is it illegal to deepfake a dead person?
It depends on the state and purpose. Several states extend right-of-publicity protections postmortem: California (70 years, Civ. Code 3344.1, amended in 2025 to cover AI digital replicas of deceased performers), New York (Civ. Rights Law 50-f, 40 years), Indiana, Nevada (50 years), and Tennessee (ELVIS Act, 10 years postmortem) all cover deceased persons. Texas protects deceased persons' voice as a property right for 50 years (Tex. Prop. Code ch. 26). Federal CSAM law applies equally to deepfakes of deceased minors. Outside of right-of-publicity states, the family of a deceased person may have fewer legal options.
Does Section 230 protect platforms that host deepfakes?
Section 230 (47 U.S.C. 230) does not immunize platforms from federal criminal law or from the TAKE IT DOWN Act's removal obligations. State criminal laws targeting the creators (not the platforms) of deepfakes are also not barred by Section 230. However, Section 230 may still limit state civil claims against platforms for third-party user content, meaning victims typically must pursue the creator, not just the hosting platform, in civil litigation.
Updates
Corrected Alabama's row in the 50-state deepfake comparison table, which wrongly said Alabama has no sexual-deepfake (NCII) law; Alabama's private-image statute (Ala. Code § 13A-6-240) does cover AI-generated intimate deepfakes of adults, matching the page's own FAQ and the Alabama state guide.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Updated the NO FAKES Act source citation to the current bill, S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026").
Updated NO FAKES Act federal bill citation to S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026") and current Senate Judiciary Committee status.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 15 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 53 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term— “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; For purposes of subsection 8(B) 1 So in original. Probably should be “(8)(B)”.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285) · Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234) · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 47
§ 230Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive materialIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
The Congress finds the following: The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 853 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 591 F.3d 250) · Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 521 U.S. 844) · Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2008, 528 F.3d 413)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, xAI Sues Grok User Over Alleged AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material, Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and BIPA Rules (2026)
Florida Statutes
§ 540.08Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:(a) Such person; or (b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or (c) If such person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation authorized in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or if no person, firm or corporation is so authorized, then by any one from among a class composed of her or his surviving spouse and surviving children.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 67 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2004, 884 So. 2d 990) · Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. (Supreme Court of Florida 2005, 901 So. 2d 802) · Emma Gayle Weaver, etc. v. Stephen C. Myers, M.D. (Supreme Court of Florida 2017, 229 So. 3d 1118)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Laws on Recording in Public: Your Rights and Limits (2026), Florida Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
§ 836.13Altered sexual depictions; prohibited acts; penalties; applicability.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Altered sexual depiction” means any visual depiction that, as a result of any type of digital, electronic, mechanical, or other modification, alteration, or adaptation, depicts a realistic version of an identifiable person:1. With the nude body parts of another person as the nude body parts of the identifiable person; 2. With computer-generated nude body parts as the nude body parts of the identifiable person; or 3. Engaging in sexual conduct as defined in s. 847.001 in which the identifiable person did not engage. (b) “Covered platform” means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application that serves the public and:1. That primarily provides a forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, images, games, and audio files; or 2. For which it is in the regular course of trade or business of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual altered sexual depictions.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leg.state.fl.us
Also relied on in: Florida AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6101Breach of privacy.In forcecited in 25 of our articles
(a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority: (1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication; (2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in transmitting such message; (3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 8 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: State v. Ivy (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025) · In re Belcher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2024, 552 P.3d 1213) · State v. Jamil (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Audio Recording Laws, Kansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Kansas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 117: REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
§ 117.322Action against use of synthetic media in electioneering communication -- Remedies -- Penalties -- Defense -- ExceptionsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) (a) Any candidate for any elected office whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through the use of synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or other equitable relief against the sponsor of the electioneering communication requiring that the communication includes a disclosure that is clear and conspicuous and included in, or alongside and associated with, the content in a manner that is likely to be noticed by the user. (b) The court may award a prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This paragraph does not limit or preclude a plaintiff from securing or recovering any other available remedy. (2) In any action brought under subsection (1) of this section: (a) The plaintiff shall: 1. File in Circuit Court of the county in which he or she resides; and 2. Bear the burden of establishing the use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence; and (b) The following shall not be liable except as provided in subsection (3) of this section: 1. The medium disseminating the electioneering communication; and 2. An advertising sales representative of such medium.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-09 · Read the full section at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits, Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 391: DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION
§ 391.170Commercial rights to use of names and likenesses of public figuresIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The General Assembly recognizes that a person has property rights in his name and likeness which are entitled to protection from commercial exploitation. The General Assembly further recognizes that although the traditional right of privacy terminates upon death of the person asserting it, the right of publicity, which is a right of protection from appropriation of some element of an individual's personality for commercial exploitation, does not terminate upon death. (2) The name or likeness of a person who is a public figure shall not be used for commercial profit for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of his death without the written consent of the executor or administrator of his estate.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 6 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021
Leading cases: Montgomery v. Montgomery (Kentucky Supreme Court 2001, 60 S.W.3d 524) · William M. Sonny Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2000, 227 F.3d 619) · Roberts v. Girder (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2017, 237 F. Supp. 3d 548)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 531: PORNOGRAPHY
§ 531.120Distribution of sexually explicit images without consentIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of distribution of sexually explicit images without consent when: (a) He or she intentionally distributes to any third party private erotic matter without the written consent of the person depicted, and does so with the intent to profit, or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted; and (b) The disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. (2) This section shall not apply to: (a) Images involving voluntary nudity or sexual conduct in public, commercial settings, or in a place where a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) Disclosures made in the public interest, including the reporting of unlawful conduct, or lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, corrections, legal proceedings, or medical treatment; (c) Disclosures of materials that constitute a matter of public concern; or (d) Internet service providers or telecommunications services, or interactive computer services, as defined in 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(f)(2), for content solely provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Kentucky Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 168.932fDistribution of materially deceptive media; prohibition; violation; misdemeanor; penalties; injunctive relief; definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not distribute, or enter into an agreement with another person to distribute, materially deceptive media if all of the following apply: (a) The person knows the media falsely represents a depicted individual. (b) The distribution occurs within 90 days before an election. (c) The person intends the distribution to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result. (d) The person intends the distribution to change the voting behavior of electors in an election by deceiving the electors into incorrectly believing that the depicted individual in fact engaged in the speech or conduct depicted, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result. (2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The media includes a disclaimer informing the viewer that the media has been manipulated by technical means and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Also relied on in: Michigan Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE
§ 609.771USE OF DEEP FAKE TECHNOLOGY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Candidate" means an individual who seeks nomination or election to a federal, statewide, legislative, judicial, or local office including special districts, school districts, towns, home rule charter and statutory cities, and counties. (c) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (d) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. Subd. 2. Violation.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Christopher Kohls v. Keith Ellison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties, Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Minnesota AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 617: ABORTION; OBSCENITY; NUISANCE
§ 617.262NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF A DEEP FAKE DEPICTING INTIMATE PARTS OR SEXUAL ACTSIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (c) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. (d) "Dissemination" means distribution to one or more persons, other than the individual depicted in the deep fake, or publication by any publicly available medium. (e) "Harass" means an act that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person. (f) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, anus, or partially or fully exposed nipple of an individual.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2025)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 47-25-1101Short title.In forcecited in 47 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984.”
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2021-05-21 · Read the full section at archive.org
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
Leading cases: Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497) · STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89) · State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Film, Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally
§ 18.2-386.2Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penaltyIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person (i) who is totally nude; (ii) who is in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or (iii) whose genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast are not exposed but such videographic or still image is obscene as defined in § 18.2-372 where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic. B.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits, Virginia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, Virginia AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 942: Crimes Against Reputation, Privacy And Civil Liberties
§ 942.09Representations depicting nudity.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
(1) In this section: (a) “Captures a representation” means takes a photograph, makes a motion picture, videotape, recording, or other visual or audio representation, or records or stores in any medium data that represents a visual image. (ae) “Consent” means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to the act. A person who has not attained the age of 18 is incapable of consent. The following persons are presumed incapable of consent but the presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence, subject to the provisions of s. 972.11 (2): 1. A person suffering from a mental illness or defect that impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct. 2. A person who is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act. (ag) “Intimate representation” means any of the following: 1. A representation of a nude or partially nude person. 2. A representation of clothed, covered, or partially clothed or covered genitalia or buttock that is not otherwise visible to the public. 3. A representation of a person urinating, defecating, or using a feminine hygiene product. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 12 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: State v. Nelson (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2006, 294 Wis. 2d 578) · State v. Culver (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2018, 384 Wis. 2d 222) · State v. Chagnon (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2015, 364 Wis. 2d 719)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Surveillance, and Privacy (2026), Wisconsin Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026), Wisconsin Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Privacy Crimes and Penalties (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 995: Miscellaneous Statutes
§ 995.50Right of privacy.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) The right of privacy is recognized in this state. One whose privacy is unreasonably invaded is entitled to the following relief: (a) Equitable relief to prevent and restrain such invasion, excluding prior restraint against constitutionally protected communication privately and through the public media; (b) Compensatory damages based either on plaintiff’s loss or defendant’s unjust enrichment; and (c) A reasonable amount for attorney fees. (2) (am) In this section, “invasion of privacy” means any of the following: 1. Intrusion upon the privacy of another of a nature highly offensive to a reasonable person, except as provided under par. (bm), in a place that a reasonable person would consider private, or in a manner that is actionable for trespass. 2. The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 43 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. Swenson (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2007, 307 Wis. 2d 390) · Gillund v. Meridian Mutual Insurance (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2009, 323 Wis. 2d 1) · Dumas v. Koebel (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2013, 352 Wis. 2d 13)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), Wisconsin Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Wisconsin GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- TAKE IT DOWN Act -- Public Law 119-12(congress.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2256 -- Federal CSAM definitions(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Order 24-17 -- AI Voices in Robocalls(fcc.gov)
- FTC Impersonation Rule 16 C.F.R. Part 461(ftc.gov)
- DEFIANCE Act S.1837 119th Congress(congress.gov)
- NO FAKES Act S.4591 119th Congress(congress.gov)
- Tennessee ELVIS Act Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101(publications.tnsosfiles.com)
- 47 U.S.C. 230 Section 230(law.cornell.edu)