To amend sections 2741.01, 2741.02, 2741.05, 2741.06, 2741.09, and 2905.11 and to enact sections 2742.01, 2742.02, 2742.03, and 2742.04 of the Revised Code to make changes to the law relating to the unauthorized use of an individual's persona and to prohibit certain unauthorized deepfake recordings.
HB185 would expand Ohio’s right-of-publicity law and create a new statutory framework aimed at unauthorized deepfake recordings. On the persona side, the bill defines “persona” broadly to include a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, and distinctive appearance, and it generally prohibits using those attributes for commercial purposes during a person’s life and for 60 years after death (or 10 years after death for deceased members of the Ohio National Guard or U.S. armed forces) without proper written consent. It also clarifies who may grant consent, who may sue to enforce the right, and what notice must be given before certain lawsuits are filed.
The bill also adds a separate chapter prohibiting “malicious deepfake recordings,” defined as altered audio or visual media that falsely appears to be an authentic record of a person’s speech or conduct and is created or distributed with intent to cause harm. It bars preparing, offering, or recklessly distributing such recordings without written consent, while carving out exceptions for clearly fictional or parody contexts and for materials with conspicuous disclaimers. The bill excludes certain protected uses, including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, political campaign uses, First Amendment-protected expression, and some educational uses by institutions of higher education.
HB185 would create civil remedies for people harmed by malicious deepfakes, including actual damages or statutory damages, punitive damages where applicable, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and orders requiring removal or destruction of the recording. It also allows additional statutory damages when a deepfake is used in connection with extortion under Ohio’s extortion statute, and it creates a separate cause of action for good-faith purchasers of a deepfake who were misled into believing it was authentic. The bill also amends Ohio’s extortion law to expressly cover threats involving malicious deepfake recordings and retains existing sexual extortion provisions.
The bill’s overall impact would be to strengthen Ohio law around identity misuse, commercial exploitation of a person’s likeness, and harmful synthetic media. It would affect individuals, estates, licensees, advertisers, media outlets, online platforms, broadcasters, and creators or distributors of AI-generated or manipulated audio/video content. It also includes liability protections and exceptions for certain intermediaries, especially broadcasters, internet service providers, and interactive computer service providers, while preserving constitutional protections and existing First Amendment-related exemptions.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available in the provided record, there is no recorded legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at addressing a widely recognized concern about deepfakes and unauthorized commercial use of identity, but it also builds in substantial exceptions for news, politics, parody, education, and constitutionally protected speech. Likely points of contention would include the breadth of the persona rights, the 60-year postmortem right, the scope of the deepfake ban, the treatment of political and campaign content, and potential effects on media, platforms, and free-expression interests.
HB185 would amend Ohio’s existing right-of-publicity statutes in Chapter 2741 and add a new Chapter 2742 governing deepfake recordings. It would broaden and clarify the protected attributes of a person’s persona, extend postmortem protection, specify who can authorize use and bring suit, and create new civil remedies and notice requirements. It would also amend the extortion statute in section 2905.11 to treat malicious deepfake distribution or threats involving such recordings as extortion, while preserving and cross-referencing existing sexual extortion provisions and intermediary protections.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a generally protective, anti-abuse policy approach focused on identity rights and synthetic media harms, with multiple exceptions intended to reduce conflict with journalism, politics, education, and constitutional speech. The absence of recorded debate means the public sentiment cannot be measured from the provided history, but the subject matter is likely to attract both consumer-protection support and free-speech or media-industry caution.
The main likely points of contention are the scope and duration of the right of publicity, especially the 60-year post-death term and the rules governing who controls and enforces that right. Another likely dispute is the deepfake prohibition’s reach, including what counts as “malicious,” how the disclaimer exception works, and whether the political-campaign exception is sufficiently clear. Media organizations, broadcasters, internet platforms, and First Amendment advocates may focus on the bill’s potential chilling effects and intermediary liability, while supporters are likely to emphasize protection against fraud, reputational harm, extortion, and nonconsensual synthetic media.