Prohibit Use of Personally Identifying Feature
HB1049 would create a new criminal offense in Colorado for the unauthorized use of another person’s personally identifying feature, defined to include a fingerprint, voiceprint, retina or iris scan, and facial map, geometry, or template. The bill covers use of those features in advertisements, deepfakes, images, videos, voice recordings, or other digital depictions. As introduced, a person who uses such a feature without permission commits a class 5 felony, and the offense becomes a class 4 felony if the use is intended to harm the person or another individual.
The bill also creates a private right of action for a harmed individual, allowing recovery of damages and reasonable attorney fees. It states that unauthorized use itself is a legally cognizable harm, and it allows a civil plaintiff to seek any amount of damages. The bill includes exceptions for law enforcement and criminal investigations, government officials acting in their official duties, news/public affairs/sports uses, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, fleeting or incidental uses, certain audiovisual works, and other First Amendment-protected activity. The bill applies only to offenses committed on or after its effective date.
If enacted, HB1049 would add a new section to Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and expand state criminal law to address biometric and facial-feature misuse in digital media and synthetic content. It would expose violators to felony prosecution and also create a civil remedy for individuals whose biometric or facial features are used without permission. The bill would affect content creators, advertisers, digital media users, and anyone producing or distributing deepfakes or similar depictions, while preserving broad exceptions for journalism, government activity, and constitutionally protected expression.
The committee record suggests mixed but ultimately unfavorable sentiment in the House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee. The committee adopted an amendment unanimously, but the bill then failed on a 2-8 vote to advance to the Committee of the Whole and was subsequently postponed indefinitely on an 8-2 vote using a reverse roll call. That pattern indicates some support for refining the proposal, but not enough support to move the bill forward in its introduced form.
The main points of contention appear to be the breadth of the criminal prohibition and its interaction with free speech and media-related exceptions. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a response to deepfakes, biometric misuse, and identity-based harm, while opponents appear to have been concerned about overcriminalization, the scope of the definitions, and the potential effect on protected speech, journalism, satire, and other First Amendment activity. The committee’s willingness to adopt an amendment but not advance the bill suggests disagreement over whether the proposal was sufficiently tailored.