Texas Senate Bill SB 228

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 11/12/24

Caption

Relating to prohibiting the use of certain political advertising manipulated by generative artificial intelligence technology; creating a criminal offense.

Summary

SB 228 would create a new offense in the Texas Election Code for publishing, distributing, or broadcasting political advertising that uses generative artificial intelligence to manipulate an officeholder’s or candidate’s image, audio, or video in a way that is realistic but false or misleading. The bill targets altered media that would cause a reasonable person to believe the officeholder or candidate appeared to say or do something that did not actually occur, and that would create a materially different impression than the original, unaltered content. The bill applies only to political advertising released on or after its effective date, September 1, 2025. It does not retroactively affect ads published before that date. A violation would be classified as a Class B misdemeanor, making the conduct criminally punishable under state law.

Impact

SB 228 would add Section 255.009 to Chapter 255 of the Texas Election Code and expand election-related restrictions to cover deceptive AI-generated political advertising. It would create a new criminal offense for knowingly using generative artificial intelligence to produce realistic but false or inaccurate depictions of candidates or officeholders in political ads, affecting political campaigns, advertisers, media distributors, and others involved in election communications. The bill would also give law enforcement and prosecutors a new basis for enforcement against manipulated campaign media.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill was referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee and there were no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter, the measure appears aimed at addressing concerns about deceptive deepfakes and election misinformation, suggesting a protective or reform-oriented intent. However, because no discussion or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from committee members in the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of contention likely centers on where to draw the line between prohibited deceptive manipulation and protected political speech, satire, parody, or ordinary editing. Another likely issue is the bill’s reliance on terms such as “realistic,” “false or inaccurate,” and “fundamentally different understanding,” which may raise questions about enforcement, proof of intent, and whether the standard is sufficiently clear. Stakeholders most likely to raise concerns would include campaign groups, media organizations, free-speech advocates, and election-law practitioners, while supporters would likely emphasize election integrity and preventing AI-driven deception.