SB360 expands Maryland’s revenge porn law to address both traditional intimate images and certain computer-generated or AI-generated visual representations. The bill defines “computer-generated visual representation” and “indistinguishable” images, and it makes it unlawful to knowingly distribute such a depiction of an identifiable person when it falsely shows the person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity, under the required intent and nonconsent circumstances. The measure also clarifies related definitions in the criminal law, including “distribute,” “intimate parts,” and “sexual activity,” and it excludes drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings from the covered visual representations.
In addition to the criminal offense, the bill creates or expands civil remedies. A person whose image or computer-generated depiction is distributed in violation of the law may bring a civil action for defamation per se or invasion of privacy, and a separate provision in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article authorizes a civil action for defamation per se when a person distributes a computer-generated depiction that is indistinguishable from an actual image and falsely depicts intimate exposure or sexual activity. Courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff. The bill also limits public access to certain court-record images connected to these cases, while allowing access to specified court personnel and parties.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize Maryland’s revenge porn statute for synthetic media and deepfakes, while preserving the existing prohibition on nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. It adds new statutory definitions, broadens the scope of prohibited conduct to include computer-generated depictions that appear real, and creates additional civil causes of action and fee-shifting remedies. It also updates confidentiality rules for court records in these cases and expressly preserves exceptions for law enforcement, legal proceedings, public reporting of unlawful conduct, and interactive computer services under federal law.
The overall sentiment around SB360 appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous in both chambers, with 47-0 in the Senate and 139-0 and 47-0 in House/Senate third-reading votes as reported, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. No committee transcript material was provided, but the final passage history suggests the bill was viewed as a targeted response to emerging harms from AI-generated sexualized images.
The main point of contention, insofar as one can be inferred from the text, is the scope of the new definitions and how far the law should reach into computer-generated or modified imagery. The bill draws lines around what counts as a covered visual representation and excludes artistic media such as drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings, likely to avoid overbreadth. It also preserves protections for lawful reporting, law enforcement, and online platforms under Section 230, reflecting an effort to balance victim protection with free-expression and intermediary-liability concerns.
SB360 amends Article - Criminal Law § 3-809 and adds new Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-505. It expands Maryland’s revenge porn framework to cover certain computer-generated and AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from real depictions, creates or clarifies civil causes of action for defamation per se and invasion of privacy, authorizes attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs, and restricts public access to related court-record images except for specified parties and officials.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad, unanimous support in both chambers, with recorded third-reading votes showing no opposition. The vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a practical update to existing revenge porn law rather than a controversial policy change. The lack of recorded dissent or committee opposition indicates a generally favorable sentiment toward strengthening protections against nonconsensual intimate-image abuse, including deepfakes.
The likely areas of concern were definitional and scope issues: what qualifies as a “computer-generated visual representation,” when an image is “indistinguishable” from a real person, and how to avoid sweeping in protected artistic works or legitimate uses. The bill addresses these concerns by excluding drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings, and by carving out law enforcement, reporting, legal proceedings, and Section 230-protected interactive computer services. Those safeguards suggest the legislature aimed to target harmful synthetic sexual imagery without overreaching into ordinary speech or platform liability.