To Establish The Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Nonconsensual Edits Act Of 2025; And To Clarify The Rights For An Individual Affected By Nonconsensual Activities Involving Intimate Digital Forgeries.
HB1823 creates the “Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Nonconsensual Edits Act of 2025,” a new civil-remedies chapter in Arkansas law aimed at nonconsensual intimate imagery and AI-generated sexual deepfakes. The bill defines key terms such as “digital forgery,” “intimate visual depiction,” “consent,” and “identifiable individual,” and gives an affected person a private right of action when intimate images or digital forgeries are disclosed, solicited, possessed, or produced without consent in a way that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
The bill allows a plaintiff to sue in Arkansas district court and seek actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs. It also authorizes injunctive and other equitable relief to stop further disclosure, and it provides privacy protections in litigation, including pseudonyms, sealed filings, redaction, and protective orders. The bill includes special standing rules for minors, incapacitated persons, and deceased individuals through guardians, family members, estate representatives, or court-appointed representatives.
HB1823 would add a new chapter to Title 4 of the Arkansas Code and create a state civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery and AI-manipulated sexual content. It would affect individuals, content distributors, and anyone who knowingly produces, possesses, solicits, or discloses such material with the required mental state and interstate-commerce connection. The bill also limits recovery where the same conduct has already resulted in a federal judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and it carves out exceptions for commercial pornographic content, good-faith disclosures to law enforcement or in legal/medical contexts, matters of public concern, and disclosures intended to help the affected person.
The bill’s framing and structure suggest strong protective support for victims of intimate image abuse, deepfakes, and nonconsensual edits, with an emphasis on privacy, civil enforcement, and deterrence. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to address a growing concern about AI-generated sexual exploitation and online harassment.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the new civil liability, the $150,000 liquidated-damages remedy, and the breadth of the definitions covering digital forgery and disclosure. Potential concerns may also arise around the exceptions for public concern, law-enforcement reporting, and commercial pornographic content, as well as the interstate-commerce requirement and whether the bill could implicate free-speech or First Amendment issues. Supporters would likely emphasize victim privacy and remedies, while critics may focus on overbreadth, litigation exposure, and how the law would apply to online platforms and third parties.