Real Property - Condominiums and Homeowners Associations - Elections
HB0955 creates a new criminal offense and related civil-law rule for “forged digital likenesses,” which are computer-generated visual or audio depictions of an identifiable person that are altered to be indistinguishable from a genuine image or recording and likely to deceive a reasonable person. The bill prohibits knowingly distributing such a likeness as if it were genuine when the distributor knows or should know it is not authentic. It also expressly excludes drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings from the definition.
In addition to the criminal prohibition, the bill amends Maryland defamation law to provide that distributing a forged digital likeness counts as a statement or communication for purposes of a defamation action. The measure includes an affirmative defense for defendants who took reasonable steps to notify viewers or listeners that the likeness was not genuine, and it states that the law may not be applied in a way that infringes First Amendment speech or press rights. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill would add new provisions to both the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and the Criminal Law Article of the Maryland Code. It would expand the legal tools available to people harmed by deceptive synthetic media by making distribution of a forged digital likeness potentially actionable as defamation and by creating a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The law would affect individuals and entities that create, share, or publish AI-generated or otherwise manipulated images or voice recordings of real people, while preserving an explicit carveout for traditional artistic works and a constitutional limitation for protected speech.
The bill text suggests a strong policy concern about deceptive deepfake-style media and its potential to mislead the public or damage reputations. Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the structure of the bill indicates a protective, enforcement-oriented approach balanced by speech safeguards. The inclusion of a First Amendment disclaimer and an affirmative defense suggests an effort to address likely constitutional and free-expression concerns while still targeting harmful misuse of synthetic media.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of the prohibition and its interaction with free speech, journalism, satire, parody, and artistic expression. The bill’s definition of a forged digital likeness is broad enough to cover both visual and audio deepfakes, which may raise concerns about overbreadth or uncertainty in application. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing fraud, defamation, and public deception, while opponents may focus on chilling effects, enforcement difficulties, and whether criminal penalties are the right response. The explicit exclusions for drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings, plus the affirmative defense for notice, appear designed to address some of those concerns.