"Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act"; enact
SB 9, titled the "Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act," amends Georgia election law to address the use of artificial intelligence and other deceptive media in political campaigns and election-related communications. The bill creates a new criminal offense called fraudulent election interference for knowingly publishing, broadcasting, streaming, or uploading materially deceptive media within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive voters or influence an election outcome. It also creates a related solicitation offense for urging others to commit that conduct.
The bill separately regulates campaign advertisements that use AI-generated media. Such ads would be allowed if they include required disclosures identifying who paid for the ad, who is being impersonated, that depicted events may not have occurred, and that AI was used. The bill sets detailed formatting rules for written and spoken disclosures, imposes civil penalties of at least $10,000 for violations, and authorizes disgorgement of fundraising proceeds tied to unlawful AI-generated solicitations. It also gives the State Election Board investigative authority and requires public release of completed investigation findings involving alleged fraudulent election interference.
The bill would amend Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, adding new election-law offenses and disclosure requirements and expanding enforcement tools. It gives the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction over prosecutions, but only after a recommendation from the State Election Board, and allows injunctive relief by the depicted individual, the Attorney General, or an injured candidate. It also directs the State Election Board and the state ethics/campaign finance commission to investigate complaints and adopt rules as needed.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history appears to be supportive of regulating deceptive AI in elections, with broad bipartisan passage in both chambers. The Senate passed the substitute 46-9 and the House passed it 152-12, suggesting substantial agreement that the state should respond to AI-generated election misinformation. The findings section emphasizes protecting both free and fair elections and free speech, indicating an attempt to frame the measure as narrowly targeted rather than a broad speech restriction.
The main points of contention are likely the balance between election integrity and First Amendment protections, and the scope of criminal and civil liability for political actors. The bill attempts to address those concerns by exempting satire, parody, artistic expression, and bona fide journalism, but the definitions of "materially deceptive media" and the 90-day pre-election window could still raise questions about overbreadth, enforcement, and whether legitimate political speech could be chilled. The requirement that the State Election Board recommend prosecution before the Attorney General may also reflect concern about limiting enforcement to serious cases.
SB 9 would add new provisions to Georgia election and campaign finance law by creating criminal offenses for fraudulent election interference and solicitation of that conduct, while also establishing mandatory disclosure rules for campaign advertisements that use AI-generated media. It would expand enforcement authority for the State Election Board, the Attorney General, and the state ethics/campaign finance commission, and it would authorize injunctive relief and public reporting of completed investigations. The bill would affect candidates, campaigns, political committees, media distributors, and individuals depicted in deceptive AI content, while expressly excluding broadcasters and internet platforms from the definition of "person" except in limited circumstances.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable toward the bill’s goal of preventing deceptive AI use in elections. The large bipartisan margins in both the Senate and House suggest broad legislative support for the measure, likely driven by concern over deepfakes, election misinformation, and voter confusion. At the same time, the bill’s repeated references to First Amendment protections and narrow tailoring indicate awareness of free-speech concerns and an effort to reassure skeptical members that the bill is not intended to ban legitimate satire, journalism, or artistic expression.
The most notable contention centers on how to draw the line between unlawful deceptive media and protected political speech. Critics could question whether the definition of "materially deceptive media" is broad enough to capture harmful deepfakes without also sweeping in parody, edited media, or other expressive content, even though the bill includes explicit exemptions. Another likely point of debate is enforcement: the bill creates criminal penalties, civil fines, and disgorgement remedies, and it gives the State Election Board a gatekeeping role before prosecution by the Attorney General. That structure suggests concern about over-enforcement, but it may also be viewed as giving state officials significant discretion over politically sensitive speech cases.