SB905 expands Maryland’s identity fraud law to address misuse of artificial intelligence and deepfake media. The bill adds definitions for “artificial intelligence,” “deepfake representation,” “harm,” and “indistinguishable from an actual and identifiable human being,” and then creates new prohibitions on using AI or deepfakes to impersonate or falsely depict another person, to defraud or mislead, to cause harm, to induce someone to provide personal identifying information, or to obtain a benefit, credit, service, or other thing of value. It also makes it a crime to use another person’s personal identifying information without consent in order to cause harm, and broadens existing identity-fraud language to cover conduct intended to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce another person.
The bill also creates a private right of action for victims of prohibited AI/deepfake conduct, allowing them to seek injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies in court. In addition, it preserves and extends existing criminal penalties for identity fraud and related conduct, including felony and misdemeanor penalties depending on the value involved and the number of victims, and it authorizes restitution for costs such as clearing credit history or correcting health-information records. The bill leaves in place statewide investigative and prosecutorial authority for State Police, certain other law enforcement agencies, the Attorney General, and State’s Attorneys, and it applies to offenses prosecuted in any county where an element occurred or where the victim resides.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize Maryland’s identity fraud statute by explicitly covering AI-generated impersonation and deepfake content, while also strengthening remedies for victims. It amends Article 8-301 of the Criminal Law Article and references the State Finance and Procurement Article definition of artificial intelligence, thereby tying criminal enforcement to an existing statutory definition. The measure would affect individuals, businesses, online platforms, law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims of digital impersonation or fraudulent identity use, especially in contexts involving financial fraud, harassment, and misuse of health information.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to be a targeted response to emerging concerns about AI-enabled fraud, nonconsensual impersonation, and deepfake abuse, with a clear victim-protection and enforcement focus. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means no specific political divide can be identified from the available record.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the new AI/deepfake prohibitions reach, especially the terms “harm,” “mislead,” and “indistinguishable,” and whether the criminal penalties and civil remedies could sweep in borderline or expressive uses of synthetic media. Another possible issue is enforcement scope, since the bill extends investigative and prosecutorial authority across jurisdictions and creates a civil cause of action, which may raise questions about overbreadth, proof, and First Amendment implications in some applications.
SB905 amends Maryland Criminal Law § 8-301 to add AI- and deepfake-specific identity fraud offenses, expand prohibited uses of another person’s personal identifying information, and authorize civil suits by victims. It also preserves and reinforces statewide enforcement, prosecution, and restitution provisions, while incorporating the statutory definition of artificial intelligence from the State Finance and Procurement Article.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process. The bill’s text suggests a generally protective, anti-fraud policy approach aimed at addressing modern digital impersonation and deepfake harms, with an emphasis on victim remedies and law enforcement tools.
Potential contention is likely to focus on the breadth of the new AI and deepfake prohibitions, especially the definitions of harm, impersonation, and indistinguishable media, as well as the bill’s criminal penalties and civil cause of action. Stakeholders concerned about free expression, media creation, or technical overreach may question whether the language could capture legitimate uses of synthetic media, while supporters are likely to emphasize fraud prevention, privacy, and victim protection.