Criminal Law - Identity Fraud - Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Representations
HB 184 expands Maryland’s identity fraud law to address misuse of personal identifying information, artificial intelligence, and deepfake representations. The bill adds new definitions for “artificial intelligence,” “deepfake representation,” and “harm,” and it broadens prohibited conduct to include using another person’s personal identifying information without consent to cause harm, as well as using AI or deepfakes to impersonate someone, falsely depict them, create false records, or otherwise defraud, mislead, or cause harm. It also retains and updates existing identity theft, skimming, re-encoding, and impersonation provisions, including conduct involving health information and health care.
The bill creates new criminal penalties for AI/deepfake-related identity fraud, including misdemeanor and felony treatment depending on the number of victims and the nature of the conduct. It also authorizes victims of deepfake impersonation or related conduct to bring a civil action for injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies. Restitution provisions are expanded to cover costs associated with clearing credit histories and health-related records, and the bill preserves statewide investigative and prosecutorial authority for state and certain local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2026.
HB 184 amends Criminal Law § 8-301 and related provisions to explicitly cover AI-generated and deepfake-based identity fraud, while also conforming cross-references and penalty tiers. It does not create a new standalone offense code, but instead expands the existing identity fraud framework to include misuse of personal identifying information to cause harm and fraudulent use of AI/deepfakes to impersonate or deceive. The bill also adds a private civil remedy for victims and preserves statewide enforcement, venue, and restitution rules, affecting defendants, victims, law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud measure with a generally protective policy rationale. The sponsor’s approach suggests concern about emerging AI-enabled deception and identity misuse, and the bill’s structure indicates an effort to modernize existing fraud law rather than overhaul it. No recorded opposition or support is available in the provided context, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history here.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the new AI and deepfake prohibitions, especially the terms “harm,” “mislead,” and “false records,” which could raise questions about proof, scope, and possible overlap with protected speech or legitimate uses such as satire, parody, journalism, or creative works. Another likely issue is the expansion of criminal liability and the addition of a civil cause of action, which may concern technology companies, media platforms, and civil liberties advocates. The bill’s carve-out excluding drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings from the deepfake definition helps narrow the scope, but the line between harmful impersonation and expressive content could still be debated.