A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12.1-31 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting deepfake videos and images; and to provide a penalty.
Summary
HB 1320 would create a new criminal offense in North Dakota for the fraudulent use of deepfake videos or images. The bill defines a “deepfake video or image” as a video, audio recording, motion picture, electronic image, or photograph that has been digitally altered or created by artificial intelligence with the intent to deceive and that depicts a person’s image or voice in a way that did not occur in reality.
Under the bill, it would be a class A misdemeanor to intentionally produce, possess, distribute, promote, advertise, sell, exhibit, broadcast, or transmit a deepfake video or image without the consent of the person depicted. The measure is aimed at addressing deceptive AI-generated media and the harms that can result from nonconsensual manipulation of a person’s likeness or voice.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1320 would add a new section to chapter 12.1-31 of the North Dakota Century Code and expand the state’s criminal code to specifically cover AI-generated deceptive media. It would expose violators to class A misdemeanor penalties and give law enforcement and prosecutors a direct statutory basis to address nonconsensual deepfake content involving a person’s image or voice.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been motivated by concern over the misuse of artificial intelligence and the spread of deceptive digital media. However, it failed on House second reading by a wide margin, with 17 yeas and 69 nays, indicating limited support in the chamber despite the policy issue it sought to address. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of legislative sentiment.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the scope of the prohibition and the criminalization of possession and distribution of deepfake content, not just creation. Supporters would view the bill as a needed response to AI-enabled fraud, harassment, and reputational harm, while opponents may have been concerned about overbreadth, free speech implications, enforcement difficulties, or whether existing laws already cover some of the conduct. The lack of committee discussion in the record makes the specific arguments on each side unclear, but the floor vote suggests substantial disagreement.