Civil Actions - Sexual Deepfake Representations and Revenge Porn
HB663 creates and expands civil remedies related to nonconsensual sexual imagery, including AI-generated or computer-generated “deepfake” images. The bill authorizes a person to sue for defamation per se when another person distributes a computer-generated visual representation that is indistinguishable from an actual image of the person and falsely depicts the person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity. It also adds a separate civil cause of action for a person whose image is distributed in violation of Maryland’s revenge porn law.
The bill defines key terms such as “indistinguishable from an actual visual representation,” “distribute,” “intimate parts,” “sexual activity,” and “visual representation,” and clarifies that the covered images include computer-generated images or pictures but not drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings. It preserves existing criminal prohibitions on knowingly distributing intimate images without consent and adds language allowing victims to seek actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees in civil actions under the criminal statute. The bill also permits courts to award punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief in the new defamation action, and restricts public access to certain court records involving these cases.
If enacted, HB663 would expand Maryland law by creating a new civil pathway for victims of sexual deepfakes and by expressly authorizing civil suits for revenge porn victims. It would affect the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and the Criminal Law Article, broadening remedies available to victims while leaving the underlying criminal offense in place. The bill is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or voting pattern to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-protection and privacy bill, with a focus on addressing harms caused by AI-generated sexual imagery and nonconsensual image distribution.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of liability, the treatment of computer-generated content versus other forms of expression, and the balance between victim remedies and free-speech or platform-liability concerns. The bill specifically excludes interactive computer services from liability for third-party content and carves out law enforcement, reporting, legal proceedings, and voluntary public or commercial exposure, which suggests an effort to limit overbreadth while still providing strong remedies for victims.
HB663 would amend Maryland law by adding a new civil cause of action in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article for defamation per se based on sexual deepfake representations, and by revising Criminal Law Article § 3-809 to clarify the definition of “visual representation” and to expand civil remedies for revenge porn victims. It would allow prevailing plaintiffs to seek punitive damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and actual damages depending on the claim, while also limiting public access to certain court records related to these cases. The bill would primarily affect individuals whose intimate images are distributed without consent, as well as those who create or distribute AI-generated sexual deepfakes.
No committee testimony or vote history is included, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the provided materials. The bill’s structure and findings suggest a generally protective, victim-centered policy approach aimed at addressing modern privacy harms caused by deepfakes and revenge porn. On its face, the measure appears likely to draw sympathy from lawmakers concerned with digital abuse, while also inviting scrutiny from those attentive to speech, technology, and liability issues.
The likely areas of contention are the breadth of the new defamation per se cause of action, the definition of what counts as an “indistinguishable” computer-generated image, and whether the remedies are too expansive. Critics could question whether the bill risks sweeping in legitimate expression or creating uncertainty for online platforms and creators, although the bill expressly excludes drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings, and third-party content hosted by interactive computer services. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for stronger remedies for victims of nonconsensual sexual imagery, especially as AI-generated deepfakes become easier to produce and distribute.