Crimes and offenses; crime of distribution of materially deceptive media established, permanent injunctive relief authorized
HB291 would create a new criminal offense for distributing “materially deceptive media,” defined as AI-generated image, audio, or video that falsely depicts a real person engaging in speech or conduct they did not actually engage in, and that a reasonable viewer or listener would believe is real. The bill also covers agreements to distribute such media and sets out detailed disclosure requirements that can exempt the conduct from liability, including prominent disclaimers for video, audio, and images, as well as citations to original sources when existing media is edited.
The bill establishes penalties of a Class A misdemeanor for a first violation and a Class D felony for a second or subsequent conviction within five years. It also authorizes the Attorney General or the depicted individual to seek permanent injunctive relief against violators, with special procedures for frivolous claims and a clear-and-convincing evidence standard for proving the defendant knew the media was false. The bill includes exceptions for certain distributors lacking actual knowledge and intent to harm, preserves federal Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections, and exempts satire, parody, and bona fide news coverage that clearly questions authenticity.
If enacted, HB291 would add a new state criminal prohibition targeting AI-generated deepfakes and would create a civil-equitable remedy allowing the state or affected individuals to stop further distribution. It would affect creators, sponsors, purchasers, and distributors of synthetic media, while carving out protections for news organizations, broadcasters, internet platforms, and other intermediaries in specified circumstances. The bill would also interact with existing media and internet-law frameworks by expressly stating it does not alter rights or immunities under 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and protective, aimed at addressing harms from deceptive AI-generated media. The bill’s structure suggests concern about reputational injury, fraud, and public deception, while still trying to preserve legitimate journalism, satire, and platform protections. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented opposition or support to gauge beyond the bill’s stated policy approach.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly “materially deceptive media” is defined, whether criminal penalties could chill speech, satire, parody, or political expression, and how the disclaimer requirements would work in practice across different media formats. Another likely issue is the scope of liability for distributors and online platforms, especially given the bill’s attempt to preserve Section 230 protections while also regulating distribution. The bill also raises questions about proof of knowledge, enforcement burdens, and whether the injunctive-relief remedy could be used strategically or frivolously, which the bill addresses with special dismissal procedures.