AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
HB21 creates a new Kentucky civil and criminal framework aimed at the nonconsensual dissemination of “deep fakes,” defined as highly realistic digital audio, video, images, or photographs that falsely appear to depict a real person’s speech or conduct. The bill makes it unlawful for a natural person to willfully and knowingly distribute a deep fake of an identifiable individual without that person’s express written consent. It also provides a private right of action allowing the depicted individual to seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees, and it sets a three-year statute of limitations for civil claims.
In addition to the civil remedy, HB21 creates a criminal offense in KRS Chapter 519 for disseminating a deep fake with intent to harass, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm, or with knowledge or reckless disregard that the disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm. It also covers deep fakes that could reasonably affect administrative, legislative, judicial, or election-related proceedings, and classifies the offense as a Class D felony. The bill includes multiple exceptions for law enforcement, reporting unlawful conduct, medical or mental health treatment, commercial and artistic uses, public-interest matters, scientific research, legal proceedings, parody/satire/entertainment with disclosures, and certain news media uses. It also preserves federal Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections for interactive computer services and limits liability for platforms acting in that capacity.
HB21 would add new sections to KRS Chapters 411, 413, and 519, creating both civil liability and criminal penalties for unauthorized deep fake dissemination in Kentucky. It would give affected individuals a direct cause of action in state court and establish a felony offense for harmful or election-related deep fake disclosures, while also carving out broad exemptions for journalism, research, artistic expression, and other specified lawful uses. The bill would not alter federal Section 230 protections for interactive computer services, and it expressly avoids imposing publisher liability on those services for third-party content.
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes, the overall sentiment appears to be protective and remedial, focused on privacy, reputation, and election integrity. The measure is framed as a response to harmful synthetic media while still attempting to preserve legitimate speech, news reporting, research, and entertainment uses through detailed exceptions and disclosure requirements.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between preventing abuse and protecting free expression, journalism, and platform liability limits. The bill’s broad definitions of deep fakes and its felony penalty could raise concerns about overbreadth or chilling effects, especially for parody, satire, political commentary, and election-related content. At the same time, supporters would likely emphasize the need to deter harassment, fraud, reputational harm, and interference with public proceedings. The explicit preservation of Section 230 and the enumerated exceptions suggest an effort to address those concerns, but they also indicate where debate would likely focus.