Concerning prohibiting the use of another individual's personally identifying feature without permission.
HB26-1049 would create a new criminal offense in Colorado for using another person’s biometric or facial-identifying features without permission in an advertisement, deepfake, image, video, voice recording, or other digital depiction. The bill defines “personally identifying feature” to include fingerprints, voiceprints, retina or iris scans, and facial maps, geometry, or templates. A violation is generally a class 5 felony, but the offense becomes a class 4 felony if the unauthorized use is done with intent 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 a plaintiff may seek damages in any amount. The bill includes several exceptions, including uses connected to criminal investigations, official government duties, news/public affairs/sports coverage, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, certain audiovisual works, fleeting or incidental uses, and other First Amendment-protected activity.
If enacted, the bill would add section 18-5-906 to the Colorado Revised Statutes and expand state criminal law to cover unauthorized biometric and facial-feature misuse in digital media and advertising. It would also expose violators to felony prosecution and civil liability, affecting individuals, advertisers, content creators, media entities, and anyone distributing manipulated or synthetic media using another person’s likeness-related biometric features. The bill is prospective only, applying to offenses committed on or after its effective date.
The available legislative record shows limited formal debate or recorded votes, but the bill’s introduction suggests concern about deepfakes, identity misuse, and digital impersonation. Its broad exceptions for journalism, parody, scholarship, and other protected speech indicate an effort to balance privacy and anti-harm goals with constitutional free-speech protections. The bill was ultimately postponed indefinitely in the House committee, which suggests the proposal did not advance and may have faced unresolved concerns.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of the prohibited conduct and the potential overlap with First Amendment-protected expression. The bill’s coverage of advertisements, deepfakes, and other digital depictions could raise concerns for media, entertainment, and technology stakeholders, while the exceptions for news, satire, parody, and audiovisual works appear designed to address those concerns. Another likely issue is the breadth of civil liability, since the bill allows damages in any amount and attorney fees, which could be viewed as a strong enforcement tool but also a litigation risk for speakers and publishers.