SB 1506 creates a new Missouri offense and civil remedy for the generation, solicitation, promotion, or possession with intent to promote an “altered sexual depiction” of an identifiable person without that person’s consent. The bill defines altered sexual depictions broadly to include digitally or otherwise modified images that make it appear an identifiable person is nude or engaged in sexual conduct they did not actually perform. Violations are classified as a class C felony, and each prohibited act is treated as a separate offense.
The bill also gives an aggrieved person the right to sue for injunctive relief, damages of at least $10,000 or actual damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, it imposes platform-level obligations on covered websites and apps that host user-generated content or content involving nonconsensual altered sexual depictions. By December 31, 2026, such platforms must create a notice-and-removal process, post clear instructions for reporting, and remove reported material within 48 hours while making reasonable efforts to remove known identical copies. Failure to reasonably comply is treated as an unfair practice under Missouri’s consumer protection law.
The bill would add a new section to Chapter 537, RSMo, and would operate alongside existing criminal laws, including laws related to child pornography, sexual performance by a child, and sexual exploitation of a minor. It also specifies that the law applies when any element of the offense or resulting harm occurs in Missouri, and it limits liability for certain service providers, law enforcement, reporting activity, and legal proceedings. The bill expressly states that disclaimers on the altered content do not defeat liability.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is protective and punitive toward nonconsensual deepfake-style sexual imagery, with a focus on victim remedies and platform accountability. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the structure of the bill, the likely policy goal is to deter image-based sexual abuse and provide fast takedown mechanisms for victims.
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of the definitions, the scope of platform obligations, and potential free-speech or intermediary-liability concerns. Covered platforms may object to the 48-hour removal requirement, the duty to locate identical copies, and the use of consumer-protection penalties for noncompliance. The bill’s exceptions for certain service providers and lawful reporting activities suggest an effort to narrow those concerns, but the statute still places significant compliance and enforcement responsibilities on online platforms and content distributors.
SB 1506 would add section 537.585 to Missouri law, creating new criminal and civil liability for nonconsensual altered sexual depictions and imposing new duties on certain online platforms. It would also tie noncompliance with the notice-and-removal process to Missouri’s unfair-practices statute, section 407.020, expanding enforcement beyond criminal prosecution to consumer-protection remedies. The bill would affect individuals depicted in altered sexual content, creators and distributors of such content, and covered online platforms that host user-generated material.
The bill appears to have a strong victim-protection and anti-abuse orientation, targeting nonconsensual sexual deepfakes and similar manipulated imagery. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, there is no direct record of legislative debate or measured support/opposition in the provided materials. The caption and provisions suggest the bill was framed as a response to harmful online sexual exploitation rather than as a broader regulation of speech or internet platforms.
Likely areas of contention include whether the definition of “altered sexual depiction” is broad enough to capture legitimate parody, satire, or artistic expression, and whether the bill’s platform obligations are workable for online services. The 48-hour takedown deadline, requirement to remove identical copies, and exposure to consumer-protection penalties could be viewed as burdensome by technology companies and civil-liberties advocates. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for rapid removal and meaningful remedies for victims, while opponents may focus on overbreadth, enforcement challenges, and potential First Amendment or intermediary-liability issues.